Medical cannabis legalization and state-level prevalence of serious mental illness in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) 2008-2015.

Although research has established a link between cannabis legalization and use, and cannabis use and mental health, the relationship between medical cannabis legalization and mental health remains uncharacterized. This analysis investigated the relationship between state medical cannabis laws (restrictive, i.e. covering a narrow set of medical conditions; or liberal, i.e. covering a broad range of medical conditions), whether the law permits patients to petition their physician to approve medical cannabis use for specific medical conditions, and state prevalence of serious mental illness (SMI) in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health 2008-2015. In a covariate-adjusted meta-regression, liberal laws were significantly associated with higher prevalence of SMI (Coeff = 0.003, SE = 0.001, p < .001). Restrictive laws (Coeff = 0.001, SE = 0.001, p = .285) and the ability to petition physician approval (Coeff = -0.001, SE = 0.001, p = .140) were non-significant. When added to the model, state past-year cannabis use was significantly associated with higher prevalence of SMI (Coeff = 0.037, SE = 0.015, p = .018), liberal laws remained significant (Coeff = 0.002, SE = 0.001, p = .015), and restrictive laws (Coeff = -0.0001, SE = 0.001, p = .945) and the ability to petition a physician (Coeff = 0.001, SE = 0.001, p = .290) remained non-significant. Medical cannabis laws are likely related to state mental health, and a higher prevalence of cannabis use partially explains this relationship.

Tasty THC: Promises and Challenges of Cannabis Edibles.

Food products containing cannabis extract (edibles) have emerged as a popular and lucrative facet of the legalized market for both recreational and medicinal cannabis. The many formulations of cannabis extracts used in edibles present a unique regulatory challenge for policy makers. Though edibles are often considered a safe, discreet, and effective means of attaining the therapeutic and/or intoxicating effects of cannabis without exposure to the potentially harmful risks of cannabis smoking, little research has evaluated how ingestion differs from other methods of cannabis administration in terms of therapeutic efficacy, subjective effects, and safety. The most prominent difference between ingestion and inhalation of cannabis extracts is the delayed onset of drug effect with ingestion. Consumers often do not understand this aspect of edible use and may consume a greater than intended amount of drug before the drug has taken effect, often resulting in profoundly adverse effects. Written for the educated layperson and for policy makers, this paper explores the current state of research regarding edibles, highlighting the promises and challenges that edibles present to both users and policy makers, and describes the approaches that four states in which recreational cannabis use is legal have taken regarding regulating edibles.

Carrots and sticks: compliance provisions in state competitive food laws-examples for state and local implementation of the updated USDA standards.

BACKGROUND: Competitive foods remain prevalent in schools even though the majority of states' laws have addressed this for several years. Whereas updated federal standards take effect during school year 2014-2015, aspects of competitive food regulation will remain relegated to the states and districts and concerns exist about compliance with the federal standards. This study examined compliance provisions codified into state law that focused on incentives, monetary penalties, or contracts which could provide examples for other jurisdictions. METHODS: Codified statutory and administrative laws effective as of January 2013 for all 50 states and the District of Columbia were compiled using Boolean searches in Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw. All laws were analyzed by 2 study authors to determine the presence and components of relevant provisions. RESULTS: Eighteen states' laws contained compliance mechanisms including financial and/or programmatic incentives (5 states), contract provisions (11 states), and monetary penalties for noncompliance (7 states). Five states' laws contained a combination of approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance measures help to strengthen competitive food laws by providing state agencies with an enforcement mechanism. Enforcing such provisions will help to create healthier school environments. This study will provide useful insight for governments at all levels as they implement competitive food laws.