#NORML #News Source: @norml @WeedConnection Posted By: norml@weedconnection.com media :: news - Tue, 17 Feb 2021 04:20:21 PST
Report: Adult-Use Legalization Laws Not Associated with Adverse Impacts on Public Health
Washington, DC: The enactment of statewide laws regulating the adult use, production, and retail sale of cannabis is not associated with significant adverse impacts on public health, according to a comprehensive analysis of state-level data by the libertarian-leaning Washington, DC think-tank CATO.
Investigators reported that legalization has not demonstrably impacted young people's use of cannabis or other substances, nor has it significantly influenced overall trends in traffic safety, violent crime, or suicide rates.
"Our data showed that state-level legalization of marijuana had generally minor effects," authors concluded. "One notable exception was the increase in state tax revenue from legalized marijuana sales, ... which has exceeded some expectations."
The report updates prior research published by the authors in 2016. That analysis similarly concluded: "[S]tate marijuana legalization [laws] have had minimal effect on marijuana use and related outcomes. The absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents."
Full text of the report, "The Effect of State Marijuana Legalization: 2021 Update," is available online. Additional information is available from the NORML fact sheet, "Marijuana Regulation: Impact on Health, Safety, Economy."
Report: Adult-Use Legalization Laws Not Associated with Adverse Impacts on Public Health
Washington, DC: The enactment of statewide laws regulating the adult use, production, and retail sale of cannabis is not associated with significant adverse impacts on public health, according to a comprehensive analysis of state-level data by the libertarian-leaning Washington, DC think-tank CATO.
Investigators reported that legalization has not demonstrably impacted young people's use of cannabis or other substances, nor has it significantly influenced overall trends in traffic safety, violent crime, or suicide rates.
"Our data showed that state-level legalization of marijuana had generally minor effects," authors concluded. "One notable exception was the increase in state tax revenue from legalized marijuana sales, ... which has exceeded some expectations."
The report updates prior research published by the authors in 2016. That analysis similarly concluded: "[S]tate marijuana legalization [laws] have had minimal effect on marijuana use and related outcomes. The absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents."
Full text of the report, "The Effect of State Marijuana Legalization: 2021 Update," is available online. Additional information is available from the NORML fact sheet, "Marijuana Regulation: Impact on Health, Safety, Economy."
Clinical Trial: Whole-Plant Cannabis Extracts Associated with Improved Outcomes in Autistic Patients
Jerusalem, Israel: The oral administration of plant-derived cannabis extracts is well-tolerated and reduces disruptive behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), according to clinical trial data published in the journal Molecular Autism.
A team of Israeli researchers assessed the safety and efficacy of a pair of CBD-dominant whole-plant cannabis extracts in a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of 150 young people (mean age 11.8 years) with autism. Subjects received both extracts and placebo at different times during the course of the trial.
Investigators reported that there were "no treatment-related severe or serious adverse events" resulting from cannabis therapy. Cannabinoid treatment was associated with reductions in disruptive behaviors compared to placebo. Researchers reported: "Disruptive behavior on the CGI-I [Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale] was either much or very much improved in 49 percent [of subjects taking] whole-plant extract versus 21 percent on placebo. Median SRS [Social Responsiveness Scale] Total Score (secondary-outcome) improved by 14.9 [points] on whole-plant extract versus 3.6 points after placebo." Cannabis extracts were also associated with a reduction in body mass index among overweight patients.
Authors concluded: "In this study, we have demonstrated for the first time in a placebo-controlled trial that cannabinoid treatment has the potential to decrease disruptive behaviors associated with ASD, with acceptable tolerability. This is specifically important for the many individuals with ASD who are overweight, as cannabinoid treatment was associated with net weight-loss in contrast to the substantial weight gain usually produced by antipsychotics. ... These data suggest that cannabinoids should be further investigated in ASD."
The findings are consistent with those of several prior observational studies -- such as those here, here, here, here, and here -- which have similarly reported that plant-derived cannabis extracts are effective and well-tolerated in mitigating various symptoms in patients with ASD, including hyperactivity, seizures, anxiety, and rage attacks.
Full text of the study, "Cannabinoid treatment for autism: A proof-of-concept randomized trials," appears in Molecular Autism.
South Dakota: Circuit Judge Rules Against Implementation of Voter-Approved Marijuana Legalization Measure
Pierre, SD: A Circuit Court judge has ruled in favor of litigation backed by the state Governor's office to nullify Constitutional Amendment A -- a voter-initiated measure legalizing the adult-use marijuana market in South Dakota. Fifty-four percent of voters decided in favor of the ballot measure on Election Day.
Judge Christina Klinger of the state's Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled on Monday that the measure violates state requirements that ballot measures not encompass more than one topic. The judge also ruled that the measure revises rather than amends the state's Constitution, and therefore should not be permitted to move forward. Proponents of Measure A, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, say that they will appeal the ruling to the state's Supreme Court. In a Facebook post, the group pronounced: "This is not over. We will appeal. We will prevail."
The group also backed another successful ballot initiative in November, Measure 26, legalizing medical marijuana access to qualified South Dakota patients. The results of that vote have not been legally challenged and the court's ruling does not impact that law's implementation.
The lawsuit challenging Amendment A was brought by two members of law enforcement at the behest of Republican Gov. Kristi Noem. Last month, the Governor issued an executive order stating, "I directed [petitioners] to commence the Amendment A litigation on my behalf." Prior to the election, Gov. Noem publicly opposed both Amendment A as well as Measure 26.
Commenting on the ongoing litigation, NORML's Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: "Legalization opponents cannot succeed in the court of public opinion or at the ballot box. Thus, they are now seeking to overturn election results in a desperate attempt to maintain cannabis prohibition. Whether or not one supports marijuana legalization, Americans should be outraged at these overtly undemocratic tactics."
Further information is available from South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws.
Driving Simulator Study: THC Per Se Limits Are Unreliable Predictors of Psychomotor Performance
Sydney, Australia: The presence of THC concentrations in either blood or oral fluid are unreliable indicators of driving impairment, according to data published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.
Australian researchers assessed the relationship between THC levels and driving performance in 14 volunteers. Participants vaporized cannabis samples of varying potencies (high THC/low CBD, equal ratios THC and CBD, and nominal THC/placebo). Volunteers performed on a driving simulator. Blood and oral fluid samples were collected 30 minutes following inhalation and again 3.5 hours later.
Researchers reported that neither the presence of THC in blood nor in oral fluid was a reliable measurement of driving performance. They acknowledged that nearly half of the study's participants failed to show driving impairment 30 minutes following cannabis inhalation, despite possessing THC levels above commonly imposed per se limits (e.g., 5ng/ml in blood or oral fluid). Conversely, several participants did show impairment 3.5 hours following vaporization, at a time when their THC levels were below per se limits.
"The blood and oral fluid per se limits examined often failed to discriminate between impaired and unimpaired drivers," authors reported. "Moreover, blood and oral fluid THC concentrations were poorly correlated with driving impairment. ... It is almost impossible to infer how much cannabis was consumed, or when it was consumed, based solely on a given concentration of THC in any biological matrix."
They concluded: "Due to erratic and route-dependent differences in THC pharmacokinetics as well as significant inter- and intra-individual variability, blood and oral fluid THC concentrations, unlike BAC [blood alcohol concentrations] for alcohol, provide little information as to the amount of cannabis consumed or the extent to which an individual may be intoxicated. Collectively, these results suggest that the per se limits examined here do not reliably represent thresholds for impaired driving."
The findings are consistent with those of several other studies -- such as those here, here, and here -- reporting that the presence of THC is an unreliable predictor of either recent cannabis exposure or impairment of performance. A 2019 report issued by the Congressional Research Service similarly concluded: "Research studies have been unable to consistently correlate levels of marijuana consumption, or THC in a person's body, and levels of impairment. Thus, some researchers, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have observed that using a measure of THC as evidence of a driver's impairment is not supported by scientific evidence to date."
NORML has long opposed the imposition of THC per se thresholds for cannabinoids in traffic safety legislation, opining: "The sole presence of THC and/or its metabolites in blood, particularly at low levels, is an inconsistent and largely inappropriate indicator of psychomotor impairment in cannabis consuming subjects. ... Lawmakers would be advised to consider alternative legislative approaches to address concerns over DUI cannabis behavior that do not rely solely on the presence of THC or its metabolites in blood or urine as determinants of guilt in a court of law. Otherwise, the imposition of traffic safety laws may inadvertently become a criminal mechanism for law enforcement and prosecutors to punish those who have engaged in legally protected behavior and who have not posed any actionable traffic safety threat."
Full text of the study, "The failings of per se limits to detect cannabis-induced driving impairment: Results from a simulated driving study," appears in Traffic Injury Prevention. Further information is available from the NORML fact sheet, "Marijuana and Psychomotor Performance."
Analysis: Medical Cannabis Most Commonly Recommended for Treating Chronic Pain Conditions
Mississauga, Canada: Patients in the United States seeking medical cannabis recommendations are most likely to report suffering from chronic pain, according to data published in the Journal of Cannabis Research.
Analysts affiliated with CB2 Insights, a chain of medical cannabis evaluation clinics operating throughout the United States, assessed data from over 61,000 patients seeking medical cannabis evaluations in 12 states over a 17-month period (November 2018 to March 2020).
Patients seeking medical cannabis authorizations were most likely to report their primarily condition to be related to chronic pain (39 percent), followed by anxiety (14 percent) and post-traumatic stress (8 percent). Patients also frequently reported suffering from comorbid conditions for which they sought relief, including insomnia and depression.
The average age of patients seeking authorizations was 46 years old, and most (67 percent) reported having had some prior experience with cannabis.
Authors concluded: "This retrospective study offers insight into the characteristics and commonly reported type and number of medical conditions among patients accessing medical cannabis in the US. It highlighted the conditions that patients are seeking medical cannabis for most often that would benefit from further clinical evidence; mainly pain conditions, anxiety, insomnia, depression and PTSD. This study also demonstrated that patients often use medical cannabis to treat more than one condition, which is important for the medical community to understand and be aware of, as well as the patients who may be turning to cannabis as a treatment option."
The findings are consistent with prior analyses -- such as those here and here -- indicating that medical cannabis patients are most likely to use the substance for pain management.
Full text of the study, "Medical cannabis use in the United States: A retrospective database study," appears in the Journal of Cannabis Research.
