Marijuana For Recreational Purposes Research Articles

Understanding patterns in Marijuana impaired traffic crashes

ABSTRACT Background: The landscape of marijuana regulation is rapidly changing. Several countries have already legalized marijuana in some form, and marijuana for recreational purposes will soon become legal for a quarter of the U.S. population. The potential increase in traffic fatalities due to impaired drivers remains a prominent debate among policymakers and in the media. One recent report stated that the fraction of fatal crashes in which at least one driver tested positive for marijuana has increased nationwide by an average of 10 percent from 2013 to 2016. In Louisiana, crashes involving marijuana have increased by 195% from 2010 to 2016.Methods: This study collected seven years of marijuana impaired crash data from Louisiana to identify the key association factors and their patterns. The research team identified the hidden association patterns of key attributes from the complex crash dataset using the cluster correspondence analysis.Results: The findings reveal several key risk patterns including female drivers at the intersection involved in multiple vehicle right angle crashes, multiple vehicle head-on crashes at two lane roadways with no separation, multi-vehicle rear-end crashes at two-lane roadways with separation, careless single-vehicle crashes, single-vehicle crashes during dark with no streetlights, and open country interstate crashes.Conclusions: The findings of this study can be useful in the coordination of regional and local behavioral safety efforts to lessen the occurrence and injury level of marijuana impaired traffic crashes.

A Pilot Study on the Prevalence of Marijuana Use in the High Risk Obstetrics Population at the University of Florida [02E

INTRODUCTION: Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in pregnancy and prevalence rates are reported to be 5–7%. With legalization of marijuana, there is concern that more women believe marijuana use is safe in pregnancy. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine prevalence of marijuana use in our high-risk obstetrics population. METHODS: An IRB approval was obtained. Pregnant women seen in the high-risk obstetrics clinic at University of Florida were invited to participate in an anonymous survey related to marijuana exposure. A total of 106 women were included in the study. RESULTS: More than a half (52.3%) of the women reported having used marijuana in the lifetime, 34.6% reported using marijuana prior to pregnancy, and 16.8% reported use after becoming pregnant. The prevalence rates of marijuana use varied by duration of pregnancy. Higher prevalence rates were noted for pregnancy of 12 weeks or less (18.2%) and 25 weeks or longer (19.4%); however, this was not statistically significant. Among the 7 women who reported using marijuana for recreational purposes, 6 used marijuana during pregnancy. Among all women who used marijuana prior to pregnancy, 48.7% continue to use after becoming pregnant and 51.3% quit. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of marijuana use in our high-risk obstetrics population was self-reported to be 16.8%, this is significantly higher than national self-reported data. Self-reported marijuana use did decrease when comparing use before and after identification of pregnancy. This pilot data illustrates the importance of continued research to determine adverse pregnancy outcomes related to marijuana exposure.

A National Survey of Marijuana Use Among US Adults With Medical Conditions, 2016-2017

The number of states legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use is increasing. Little is known regarding how or why adults with medical conditions use it. To report the prevalence and patterns of marijuana use among adults with and without medical conditions, overall and by sociodemographic group, and to further examine the associations between current marijuana use and the types and number of medical conditions. This survey study used a probability sample of US adults aged 18 years and older from the 2016 and 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone-administered survey that collects data from a representative sample of US adult residents across the states regarding health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of preventive services. Current (past month) and daily (≥20 days in the last 30 days) marijuana use. The study sample included 169 036 participants (95 780 female [weighted percentage, 52.0%]). Adults with medical conditions had higher odds of reporting current marijuana use than those without medical conditions (age 18-34 years: adjusted odds ratio, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.5-2.1]; age 35-54 years: adjusted odds ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.2-1.7]; age ≥55 years: adjusted odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.3-2.0]), especially among those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arthritis, cancer, and depression. Among those with medical conditions, the prevalence of marijuana use decreased with increasing age, ranging from 25.2% (95% CI, 22.0%-28.3%) for those aged 18 to 24 years to 2.4% (95% CI, 2.0%-2.8%) for those aged 65 years or older for current marijuana use and from 11.2% (95% CI, 8.7%-13.6%) to 0.9% (95% CI, 0.7%-1.2%), respectively, for daily marijuana use. Most adults who used marijuana (77.5%; 95% CI, 74.7%-80.3%), either with or without medical conditions, reported smoking as their primary method of administration. Adults with medical conditions were more likely than those without medical conditions to report using marijuana for medical reasons (45.5% [95% CI, 41.1%-49.8%] vs 21.8% [95% CI, 17.8%-25.7%]; difference, 23.7% [95% CI, 17.8%-29.6%]) and less likely to report using marijuana for recreational purposes (36.2% [95% CI, 32.1%-40.3%] vs 57.7% [95% CI, 52.6%-62.9%]; difference, -21.5% [95% CI, -28.1% to 14.9%]). This study found that marijuana use was more common among adults with medical conditions than those without such conditions. Notably, 11.2% of young adults with medical conditions reported using marijuana on a daily basis. Clinicians should screen for marijuana use among patients, understand why and how patients are using marijuana, and work with patients to optimize outcomes and reduce marijuana-associated risks.

Marijuana, feijoada and the debate on drug legalization

Feijoada is one of the most typical dishes of Brazilian cuisine, commonly made from a mixture of black beans and several cuts of pork and beef. It is served with rice, farofa (toasted, seasoned manioc flour), sauteed collard greens, and sliced oranges, among other side orders. In the most sophisticated recipes it can take more than 30 ingredients, including spices and side dishes. One does not have to be a cook, chef, or expert to distinguish beans—the main ingredient of the dish—from complete feijoada. Marijuana, the popular name of Cannabis sativa, has more than 400 compounds, many of which are named “cannabinoids” (substances that affect receptors carrying the same name) (Pate, 2002). In an analogy with feijoada, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), responsible for the psychoactive effects of the drug (Zuardi, 2008), could be the beans. In the early twentieth century, when the active principles of the drug had not yet been isolated, marijuana extracts were marketed by large pharmaceutical companies for a number of indications (Fankhauser, 2002). However, the therapeutic use declined within a few years due to the difficulty in obtaining reproducible effects and to the introduction of other drugs for the same indications of marijuana at that moment. Marijuana extracts have a wide variability in their composition, stability, and potency. Thus, consonant with the principles of the evolution of pharmacotherapy, effort has been put into the development of purer cannabinoid compounds that can be accurately measured, thus reducing the risk of significant undesirable side effects. In the first half of the 1960s the chemical structures of the major cannabinoids were determined by Professor Raphael Mechoulam from Israel, including Δ9-THC. Around 80 cannabinoids have been described to date, with different effects and many with therapeutic potential. Cannabidiol (CBD), for example, which makes up to 40% of marijuana extracts, has several effects opposite to those of Δ9-THC, including anxiolytic and antipsychotic properties (Crippa et al., 2010). Differently from Δ9-THC, the use of CBD alone does not cause the typical effects of marijuana, and Brazilian, American, British, and Israeli groups are in the leading edge of research on the therapeutic potential of this compound (Carlini, 2010). Today, CBD is being tested in Brazil in Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, social phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, smoking, epilepsy, depression, and other conditions (Crippa et al., 2010; Schier et al., 2012). It can be said, therefore, that cannabinoids are components of marijuana, but that the two are not synonyms. That is, cannabinoids are not marijuana. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in many countries, despite evidence showing that it may cause transient psychiatric symptoms and cognitive alterations depending on the dose. Moreover, chronic marijuana use may also cause long-lasting cognitive alterations and trigger the onset of psychiatric disorders in vulnerable individuals, depending on the dose, frequency, and earliness of use (Solowij et al., 2002; Manrique-Garcia et al., 2012), although these findings are still under debate. The marijuana withdrawal syndrome has gained increased recognition and it is known that some individuals may develop dependence (Hasin et al., 2008). Currently available therapeutic interventions—both pharmacological and non-pharmacological—have shown less than optimal efficacy. Modern neuroimaging studies show alterations in brain function with chronic, repeated use of marijuana (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012). Furthermore, clinical complications such as cancer and breathing and immunological problems have also been associated with the use of the drug. However, as cannabis is often smoked in conjunction with tobacco and/or other drugs, the relationship between chronic use and these problems is so far inconclusive (Lader, 2009). Therefore, the effects of chronic marijuana use on health need careful evaluation. The existing evidence about these effects is also confounded and misleading, as it considers marijuana and cannabinoids to be equivalent. All scientific debate concerning the legalization of marijuana should necessarily be informed by empirical data from clinical trials and epidemiological studies. Any debate occurring on a background of political positions, ideological biases and, even worse, personal beliefs will only increase confusion, and postpone concrete decisions. Cannabinoids and drugs that act in the endocannabinoid system have been shown to have a fantastic therapeutic potential and there is reason to believe that they could benefit millions of people worldwide. A better understanding of the mechanisms of action of these compounds, with the ensuing legalization of cannabinoids, would be an outstanding scientific breakthrough, leading to a significant decrease in burden, and improved quality of life for people with many diseases and disorders. Conversely, the debate on the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes should only take place after society and the scientific community is clearly informed about the potential complications of the drug or its possible low-risk profile. In order to do this, however, it is crucial to separate the wheat from the chaff, beans from feijoada or—in this case—cannabinoids from marijuana.

Tolerable differences revisited: crossroads in theory on the social construction of deviance

This paper builds on Stebbins' (1996) concept of tolerable differences, an underused tool for analysis of deviant activities and lifestyles that tend not to elicit the kind of collective condemnation traditionally reserved for serious moral and legal transgressions. Our analysis centers on two case studies of criminal tolerable deviance in Canada, the widespread use of marijuana for recreational purposes and the illegal ticket scalping trade. Whereas the former has inspired a vast body of literature, the latter has been thus far overlooked by sociologists. Consideration of the two together, in terms of Stebbins' framework, betters our understanding of the social construction of these practices, further developing theory and research on deviance more generally.