Harris Poll: Two-Thirds of US Adults Favor Legalizing Marijuana
Marijuana Poll; Chicago, IL: Two-thirds of US adults favor a repeal of federal marijuana prohibition, according to nationwide polling data compiled by Harris Research.
Sixty-six percent of respondents in a nationally representative sample endorse legalizing cannabis for adults, with support being strongest among millennials (79 percent) and members of Generation X (76 percent). By contrast, just under 50 percent of Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) backed adult-use legalization.
The results are consistent with those of other recent national polls, including those by Gallup, Morning Consult, and Quinnipiac University, showing that a supermajority of Americans believe that marijuana ought to be legalized for adults.
When asked whether cannabis should be legal for medical purposes, 84 percent of respondents answered affirmatively – a percentage that is also consistent with prior polling.
Survey: Users of CBG-Dominant Cannabis Report Efficacy for Pain, Other Conditions
Pullman, WA: Those who consume cannabis and/or cannabis preparations high in the cannabinoid cannabigerol (CBG) say that they are effective therapeutics and that they possess few adverse side-effects, according to data published in the journal Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.
CBG acid is the parent compound precursor to the more popularized cannabinoids THC and CBD. It is typically only found in minute quantities in harvested cannabis plants. However, in recent years, specially cultivated varieties of the plant possessing higher concentrations of CBG have been reported, particularly in the pacific northwest region of the United States.
A team of researchers affiliated with Washington State University and the University of California at Los Angeles surveyed subjects who self-identified as consumers of CBG-dominant cannabis products.
A majority of survey participants said they used CBG-dominant preparations of cannabis exclusively for medical purposes. Respondents most frequently did so to mitigate symptoms of anxiety, chronic pain, depression, and insomnia.
Most respondents described their symptoms as either “much improved” or “very much improved” following their use of CBG-dominant cannabis, and three-quarters rated it as “superior” to their conventional medications.
Authors concluded: “This is the first patient survey of CBG use to document self-reported efficacy of CBG-predominant cannabis, particularly for anxiety, chronic pain, depression, and insomnia. Most respondents claimed greater efficacy of CBG over conventional pharmacotherapy … and reported a very benign adverse event profile and negligible withdrawal. … This study demonstrates that CBG-predominant cannabis and related products are available and being used by cannabis consumers and demonstrates the urgent need for randomized controlled trials of CBG-predominant cannabis-based medicines to be studied rigorously to assess safety and efficacy as a function of dose, mode of administration, and specific therapeutic indications.”
Full text of the study, “Survey of patients employing cannabigerol-predominant cannabis preparations: Perceived medical effects, adverse events, and withdrawal symptoms,” appears in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.
Study: Legal Cannabis Markets Experienced Far Fewer Cases of Vaping Illness
New Haven, CT: States with legal adult-use cannabis markets were far less likely to experience incidences of the vaping-related lung illness EVALI (e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury), which was responsible for several thousand hospitalizations in 2019. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eventually acknowledged that vitamin E acetate – a diluting agent sometimes present in counterfeit, unregulated vape pen products – was responsible for the outbreak.
New data published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence reported that cases of EVALI were more than 40 percent lower in legal cannabis states and that they were over 60 percent lower in jurisdictions that permitted home cultivation. Home grow laws were also associated with fewer incidences of consumers engaging in the use of marijuana vape pens.
Authors concluded: “Given that EVALI cases stemmed primarily from informally-sourced vaporizable marijuana concentrates, these results are consistent with crowd-out, whereby introduction of one market (legal marijuana) displaces utilization of another (informally-sourced marijuana products). Simply put, if the public can obtain products legally from reputable sources, there is less demand for illicit market products. Thus, RM [recreational marijuana] legalization could have dampened market penetration of tainted marijuana concentrates by reducing consumption of informally-sourced marijuana products more generally.”
The findings are consistent with those of several other studies also concluding that EVALI cases were largely concentrated in states where consumers did not have legal access to cannabis products.
Full text of the study, “State marijuana policies and vaping associated lung injuries in the US,” appears in Drug and Alcohol Abuse.
Analysis: THC Levels Not Indicative of Driving Impairment
New Haven, CT: The presence of THC concentrations in either blood or saliva is an unreliable predictor of impaired driving performance, according to a literature review published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry.
Researchers affiliated with Yale University assessed multiple papers specific to the issue of marijuana and driving performance. Consistent with prior reviews, authors reported that the presence of THC in bodily fluids is not a consistent predictor of impairment and that state-imposed per se limits for THC are not evidence-based.
Authors reported, “While legislators may wish for data showing straightforward relationships between blood THC levels and driving impairment that parallel those of alcohol, the widely different pharmacokinetic properties of the two substances … make this goal unrealistic.”
They added: “[S]tudies suggest that efforts to establish per se limits for cannabis-impaired drivers based on blood THC values are still premature at this time. Considerably more evidence is needed before we can have an equivalent ‘BAC for THC.’ The particular pharmacokinetics of cannabis and its variable impairing effects on driving ability currently seem to argue that defining a standardized per se limit for THC will be a very difficult goal to achieve.”
Researchers concluded: “Until there is more evidence-based consensus of opinion on meaningful thresholds for per se laws, we would recommend against reliance on such legislation. This is particularly the case given the significant inconsistencies in threshold values currently determined by different states in the US, and the rather weak scientific basis for such decisions. Any such laws cannot claim to be strongly based on current scientific evidence, which suggest collectively that standard based on detectable blood THC levels are not useful.”
Their findings are consistent with those of numerous other studies and expert review panels concluding that the presence of THC is an unreliable indicator of either recent cannabis exposure or impairment of performance. A 2019 report issued by the Congressional Research Service similarly determined: “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.”
In recent months, lawmakers in two states – Indiana and Nevada – have rolled back their THC per se laws.
The study’s authors acknowledged that acute cannabis-induced intoxication can influence driving behavior, but also recognized that “the relative risk of such impaired driving is significantly lower than other legislated drug use while driving, such as that resulting from alcohol.”
Full text of the study, “Cannabis and Driving,” appears in Frontiers in Psychiatry.