Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Reducing the Harms of Cannabis Use: The Policy Debate in Australia Wayne Hall National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre Outline Analysis of harms caused by cannabis use – to cannabis users and others Analysis of harms arising from prohibition – to cannabis users and others – using Australian data Proposals for reducing both sets of harms – under discussion in Australia Some tentative policy prophecies percentage Cannabis use among Australian males, 1998 NDS Survey 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ever used used past year past week 14-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 age group 50-59 60+ percentage Cannabis use among Australian females, 1998 NDS Survey 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ever used used past year past week 14-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 age group 50-59 60+ Difficulties in Assessing the Adverse Health Effects of Cannabis Use Limited evidence base – rigour vs relevance of animal studies – paucity of epidemiological research – problems in causal inference • other drug use • user characteristics Social context of the evaluation – polarised views – problem deflation and inflation Acute Health Effects anxiety, dysphoria, panic, paranoia – especially among naive users cognitive and psychomotor impairment while intoxicated psychotic symptoms (probably rare) – high doses of THC – vulnerability Accidental Injury Impaired performance on complex tasks Reduced risk taking – aware of impairment Simulated driving impaired Epidemiological evidence unclear – measurement of impairment – confounding with alcohol Health Effects of Chronic Use Respiratory disease Dependence Effects of Maternal cannabis use Effects on adolescent development Schizophrenia & psychosis Issue of increased THC content Respiratory Effects Cannabis primarily smoked Cannabis smoke similar to tobacco smoke Tobacco smoking causes – obstructive respiratory disease – respiratory infections – lung cancer Most also smoke tobacco Evidence Increased cough, sputum, wheeze Histopathological changes – most marked in MT – at an earlier age Impaired immunological responses – pulmonary alveolar macrophages Increased health service use Decreased respiratory function ? Respiratory Cancers Cause for concern – composition of cannabis smoke – histopathological changes – case series of cancers in young adults – evidence of mutational changes in lung tissue Case-control studies a priority Public Health Impact of Respiratory Risks small by comparison with tobacco – in public health terms – not in terms of personal risk a consequence of smoking as a route – encouraging non-smoking use? most smoke tobacco anyway – amplification of respiratory risks Significance of a Dependence Syndrome Thought to have a low dependence potential – apparent absence of a withdrawal syndrome Important for informed choice by users – users need to be aware of the risk Increases exposure to health risks – by increasing duration of use Evidence Users seeking help to stop – Australia, Sweden, & USA Epidemiological studies – ECA 4% population lifetime – NCS 4% population lifetime – NSMWHB 2% of population past year Tolerance and withdrawal tolerance in animal & human studies withdrawal syndrome in animals – elicited by cannabinoid antagonist withdrawal symptoms in human laboratory studies: – irritability, anxiety, insomnia, depression these common in clinical populations Clinical features a withdrawal syndrome common in users seeking help compulsive use patterns – also common in problem users perceived to be a problem? – by a minority who meet criteria in community – as for alcohol & other drugs Risks and Consequences Risks – 9% of lifetime users (NCS study) – 33-50% of daily users Consequences? – respiratory symptoms – impaired memory – poor work performance – social disapproval Need for Treatment Fewer than 10% seek any treatment Why so few? – high rates of remission? – fewer consequences? – existing treatment services unattractive? How treatable? – self-help – brief interventions – psychotherapy Adolescent Development Concerns – educational performance – progression to “harder” drugs Issues – rarity of heavy use – causal attribution • other drug use • user characteristics Natural history of cannabis use under prohibition initiation in mid teens most use intermittent – relatively low capture rate for daily use discontinue mid to late 20s – impact of marriage, mortgages & children persistent use relatively rare – predicted by early initiation – heavier use Current monthly use of various drugs by age (Chen & Kandel, 1995) 100 90 proportion 80 70 alcohol 60 cigarettes 50 cannabis 40 other illicit 30 prescribed psychoactives 20 10 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 age 24 26 28 30 32 34 Educational Performance Cross sectional studies Longitudinal studies US & NZ – selective recruitment to use – peer influence – small direct contribution Educational implications – exculpation & blame – school policies A Gateway Drug? Cross-sectional & longitudinal studies Sequence of drug involvement – alcohol & tobacco precede – cannabis which precedes – heroin & other drugs < 5% of cannabis users use “harder” drugs Progression predicted by: – earlier initiation & heavier use Explanations selective recruitment to use – at risk & troubled youth more likely to use peer networks – regular users affiliate with peers who use – peer culture supportive of drug use & crime drug markets – provide opportunities to use other illicit drugs genetic vulnerability to drug dependence Cannabis & Psychosis “Cannabis psychosis” – toxic psychosis – functional psychosis Cannabis as a risk factor for schizophrenia – precipitation – exacerbation Potential significance High prevalence of cannabis use – especially at period of risk for psychosis – complicates causal attribution Additional cases of psychosis Exacerbation of psychosis Suffering of affected persons & families Costs of treating psychoses “Cannabis Psychoses” Conflicting opinions – clinical observations – limited case-control evidence Probably exist but rare – either require large doses of THC – or vulnerability Ethically difficult to reduce uncertainty Cannabis & Schizophrenia Cannabis & schizophrenia associated – in general & clinical populations Cannabis use probably exacerbates disorder – reasonable prospective evidence Possibly precipitates disorder in vulnerable – Swedish conscript study Less likely to cause disorder de novo – no evidence of rising prevalence The Issue of Potency Claim THC content of cannabis x 30 times Absence of good data: – testing not required – or done regularly Media publicity to unusual cases – biased sampling Changes in patterns of use – earlier initiation – heavier use of more potent forms THC content of Marijuana 1980-98: US Potency Monitoring Project 5 % THC 4 3 2 1 0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Changing Patterns of Cannabis Use Most users smoke “heads”and use bongs Weekly+ use accounts 96% of market Earlier initiation of use: – more regular use by younger users – more problem users? More use among vulnerable groups • persons with schizophrenia • conduct disordered adolescents More obvious problem users Possible Effects of Increased Potency For naive users: – higher risk of dysphoric & psychotic symptoms • higher rates of discontinuation? – higher rates of accidental injury? For regular users: – lower respiratory risk, if users titrate dose – higher risk of dependence? • especially among adolescents – more cognitive impairment? Summary: adverse health effects Dependence – 10% chance for users – 33-50% for daily users – consequences? Respiratory disease – chronic bronchitis – cancer? Motor vehicle accident risk? Risks of Chronic Use Adolescent use – selective recruitment to use – peer influences – indicator of at risk status Psychosis – probably produces symptoms – probably exacerbates and possibly precipitates schizophrenia in vulnerable Overall Assessment On current patterns of use – small to moderate public health impact – less than alcohol & tobacco – with possible exception of MVA, harms caused to users Do these adverse effects justify prohibition? Would relaxing prohibition increase: – rates and duration of regular cannabis use? – rates of problems related to cannabis use? Putative Harms Caused by Cannabis Prohibition Loss of individual liberty to use cannabis A large scale cannabis blackmarket – controlled by criminals – unregulated and no quality control – untaxed by government – corruption of public officials Arms race in policing technology – helicopters and satellite surveillance – indoor hydroponic cultivation The Harms of Prohibition: Effects on Rule of Law Discriminatory non-enforcement of law – only 1-2% of past year users are prosecuted – more often lower SES, unemployed males Brings law into disrepute among the young Effects on users of conviction – stigma of criminal record – no impact on cannabis use – disproportionate penalty for self-harm The Harms of Prohibition: Inefficient Uses of Scarce Resources Paradox of cannabis law enforcement • most cannabis use goes undetected but • majority of drug offences are for cannabis use Inefficient use of scarce resources: • police and Criminal Justice System Loss of medical uses of cannabis products • e.g. anti-nausea agent & appetite stimulant • analgesic and antispasmodic Options for Reducing Cannabis-related harms Intensified enforcement of prohibition – US and Swedish models Legalisation of cannabis use – de facto e.g. the Netherlands – or de jure “Decriminalisation”: – prohibition with civil penalties – diversion into treatment or education Intensification of Prohibition American model – substantial fines and gaol sentences – workplace drug testing – school education & mass media campaigns – “zero tolerance” and strong social disapproval Swedish model – disapproval similar to US – compulsory treatment rather than imprisonment Problems with Intensified Enforcement Costs of implementation • imprisonment or compulsory treatment • expanding role of government vs general retreat Presupposes societal consensus • absent in Australia where opinion divided Limits to effectiveness • may have decreased use in USA but rising again • may be easier to keep low as in Sweden Backlash against prohibition? • excessive zeal in enforcement favours reformists Cannabis Legalisation a minority option in Australia (25%) – credibility of opponents and proponents an irreversible step likely to increase heavy & regular use – experience with alcohol & other drugs contrary to international treaties – and international sentiment Decriminalisation Pros Cons A cautious step – easily reversed Reduces – harms to users – discriminatory enforcement Better use of scarce resources Minimal impact on use Little or no effect on blackmarket Inconsistent: – use not a crime – but sale is Symbolism – implies cannabis use is safe & acceptable A Choice of Evils Insufficient data for utilitarian analysis Trading off incommensurable values: – users’ health – social disorder and crime – civil liberties A task for the political system – polarisation of public opinion – lack of consensus on trade-off – minimal changes to status quo most likely Reduced Penalties for Personal Use Removal gaol penalties for 1st offenders – de jure recognition of practice Cautioning and diversion as an alternative – may increase number of users dealt with – a proportionate response to self-harm Reduced Penalties for Personal Use Reduce push for more radical reform – more reversible policy – consistent with international agreements Coupled with penalties for use when driving – to address most probable adverse effect on non-users Graduated penalties based on THC content? A Necessary Breathing Space? Epidemiological research on adverse effects – on adolescent development – serious long term health consequences • cancers, respiratory disease, psychosis More credible health education – scepticism about scares among young – parallels with the effects of alcohol & tobacco: • respiratory risks, MVA, dependence, psychosis Better assessment of therapeutic uses – AIDS& cancer related nausea and wasting – neurological diseases and intractable pain