Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive substance that produces the “ high” associated with smoking marijuana and can also lead to central nervous. In this article we first provide an overview of the biochemical basis of cannabis research by examining the different effects of the two main compounds of the. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has considered how it might support the scientific rigor of medicinal cannabis claims, and the review of public data.
on THC? is Overview What
In contrast, other respondents saw the proposed limit as a prudent safeguard to mitigate against the risk of accidental or overconsumption of a product class primarily intended for ingestion. The feedback received did not include scientific evidence to support the regulations establishing a different, specific THC concentration limit for cannabis oil. Necessary regulations addressing edibles containing cannabis and cannabis concentrates will be put in place within one year following the coming into force of the proposed Cannabis Act, if it is passed by Parliament.
Health Canada plans to consult broadly on these regulations with the provinces and territories, industry, the public health community and other interested stakeholders. In addition, the requirements would also help promote informed consumer choice, particularly with respect to the health risks associated with cannabis use, and allow for the safe handling and transportation of cannabis.
The paper proposed that all cannabis products would need to be packaged in a manner that is tamper-evident and child-resistant. As well, the consultation paper proposed that the regulations would set strict limits on the use of colours, graphics, and other special characteristics of packaging to curtail the appeal of products to youth and to ensure that key information would be the most prominently displayed elements.
To help consumers make informed decisions and to avoid misuse, products would be required to be labelled with specific information about the product such as potency , contain mandatory health warnings messages, and be marked with a clearly recognizable standardized cannabis symbol.
Overall, a clear majority of those who provided views on the proposed packaging and labelling requirements expressed support for the proposals, while a minority disagreed with the proposed requirements.
Among those who expressed support, many suggested additional information that they felt should be required to be on the label. Additional information that was not already part of the proposal in the consultation paper included additional information on other cannabinoids and terpenes; growing conditions; whether a product was organic or not; and the origin of the cannabis name of the cultivator. Beyond information related specifically to the product, there was a subset of respondents who wanted to ensure that the health warning messages covered specific topics, such as cautioning against the use of cannabis while pregnant, or while operating a vehicle.
Some respondents expressed general support, but felt that some branding should be allowed, while others advocated for strict requirements that would prohibit the display of any branding or logos. Among the minority of respondents who disagreed with the proposed packaging and labelling requirements, a strong majority indicated the proposal was too strict.
Of these respondents, a subset specifically indicated that packaging requirements should allow branding and marketing by producers. These respondents felt that the ability for the legal industry to brand their products was necessary to allow them to differentiate their products from their competitors, including illegal producers operating outside of the legal framework.
Overall, respondents expressed support for the proposed packaging requirements, especially the requirement that all packages be child-resistant. Health Canada also received feedback from a few industry stakeholders who indicated that the accuracy of weight permitted for fresh or dried cannabis products under the ACMPR i. In response to this feedback, consideration is being given to what measures, if any, are required in the final regulations to address the issue of weight tolerances.
Industry stakeholders were nearly unanimous in stating that, in order to prepare products that are compliant with the packaging and labelling rules in time for the coming into force of the legislation, they needed certainty as soon as possible on what the regulations would require.
Based on experience in other areas including tobacco, food, prescription drugs, and hazardous products , packaging and labelling rules tend to be highly detailed and specific, and industry requires significant lead-time to design, manufacture, and print their packages and labels.
A primary purpose of the proposed regulatory requirements is to ensure that packaging and labelling are not designed to induce young persons and others to use cannabis. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that product packaging and labelling has a significant impact on consumer perceptions and behaviour, given its broad reach and exposure at key time points such as at point of purchase and during use. It is understood that, in order to provide for the orderly implementation of the proposed Cannabis Act, the legal cannabis industry would need to understand, as soon as possible, what the regulations would require with respect to packaging and labelling.
To that end, and to provide industry with as much information as possible, Annexes A and B of this document provide detailed descriptions of label content and labelling requirements that are intended to be proposed for the final regulations.
With respect to package-specific requirements, the intention is to propose that the regulations would require that cannabis products other than cannabis plants or cannabis seeds be packaged in an immediate container that is tamper-evident, child-resistant, prevents contamination and keeps cannabis dry.
For clarity, a cannabis product would include cannabis and any cannabis accessory a thing used in the consumption of the cannabis, such as a rolling paper or gel capsule that contains the cannabis.
These cannabis accessories for example, the rolling papers or gel capsules would not be considered a container. In addition, the intention is to propose that the regulations would require that the immediate container be opaque or translucent.
Products could have both an inner and outer package, but every package would need to be labelled in accordance with the proposed requirements. Footnote 2 Finally, the regulations would require licensed processors to ship an informational document developed by Health Canada with every package delivered to a federally-, provincially-, or territorially-licensed distributor or retailer.
The document would not be required to be included as an insert in the package, but would be provided to consumers with the sale or delivery of the package. The document would provide adult consumers with health and safety information, such as precautions and directions for use, and would be updated periodically to take into account new information and evidence.
To facilitate the orderly transition from the current packaging and labelling requirements under the ACMPR to the new regulatory requirements, the intention is to propose a transition period for cannabis products sold for medical purposes. Specifically, it is proposed that for six months following the coming into force of the proposed Cannabis Act, all cannabis products sold for medical purposes could be packaged and labelled in accordance with the current rules under the ACMPR.
This would mean that for six months following the coming into force of the proposed Cannabis Act, cannabis products delivered to patients would be required to meet either the requirements as they currently exist under the ACMPR or the new requirements under the proposed Cannabis Act.
Health Canada does not intend to propose any transition period for cannabis products sold for non-medical purposes i. All of these products would be required to meet the new packaging and labelling requirements immediately upon the coming into force of the proposed Cannabis Act. There would not be any transitional provisions for the packaging and labelling requirements set out in the proposed Cannabis Act for any cannabis products regardless of whether they are to be sold for medical or non-medical purposes for example, no packages or labels could be appealing to young persons or contain a celebrity endorsement immediately upon coming into force of the proposed Act.
It is important to note that, in addition to the requirements set out above, there are a number of packaging and labelling requirements set out in the proposed Cannabis Act, as well as in the Annexes to the current report, to which regulated parties would be subject.
It is important that all of these requirements be considered in the context of any decisions with respect to packaging and labelling that could be made between the date of publication of this report and the anticipated coming into force of the proposed Cannabis Act and its regulations. Consistent with the advice of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, the consultation paper proposed that a distinct system would be maintained to provide patients with reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes.
The proposed regulations would continue to enable individuals who have the support of their healthcare practitioner including those under 18 years of age to access cannabis for medical purposes by:. The consultation paper proposed that the medical access regulatory framework would remain substantively the same as it currently exists, with certain adjustments to: In general, respondents to the consultation expressed support for the proposed regulatory approach to provide access to cannabis for medical purposes under the proposed Cannabis Act.
In particular, respondents were supportive of the proposed adjustments to improve patient access, namely allowing individuals to transfer their valid medical document to a different federally-licensed seller of cannabis for medical purposes, and that registrations would begin on the date of initial registration and not on the date the medical document was signed by their health care practitioner, as is currently the case.
Some participants in the consultation raised specific topics, including recommending that cannabis for medical purposes should be treated like other approved health products and drugs and have some type of Health Canada approval so that it would be eligible for coverage under private health plans; that it should be accessible through other distribution means than the current system of secure ordering online and delivery by mail or by courier, such as through pharmacies; and that cannabis for medical purposes should not have to display mandatory health warning messages.
Health Canada appreciates the feedback that it has received from respondents on the regulatory proposals. As part of their response to the Health Canada consultation, many stakeholders took the opportunity to voice their opinion on a proposal to apply an excise duty to all cannabis products in Canada that was made as part of a separate consultation process conducted by the Department of Finance in the fall of Most respondents to the Health Canada consultation did not support applying an excise duty to cannabis sold for medical purposes, and also argued that cannabis for medical purposes should be exempt from the federal Goods and Services Tax GST.
As announced in Budget , the excise duty framework will generally apply to cannabis products that contain THC, the primary psychoactive compound of cannabis. Recognizing the non-addictive, potentially therapeutic role of low-THC cannabis oils, products that contain low amounts of THC will generally not be subject to the excise duty. Pharmaceutical products derived from cannabis will also be exempt, provided that the cannabis product has a Drug Identification Number and can only be acquired through a prescription.
The consultation paper proposed that the regulations would provide for a scientific, evidence-based approach for the approval and oversight of health products containing cannabis that would be regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, including prescription and non-prescription drugs, natural health products, veterinary drugs and veterinary health products, and medical devices.
It further proposed that market access would be maintained for previously-approved health products with cannabis, including prescription drugs that have been approved for the treatment of serious conditions.
It was also proposed that certain provisions of the proposed Cannabis Act and its regulations would not apply to health products containing cannabis. The consultation paper also proposed that any cosmetics containing cannabis would be subject to all provisions of the proposed Cannabis Act and its regulations. In general, a majority of respondents to the consultation expressed support for the proposed approach to the regulation of health products and cosmetics containing cannabis, while a minority of respondents disagreed or were unsure.
In particular, stakeholders agreed that any claims made with respect to the therapeutic benefits of cannabis must be evidence-based, verified, and independently validated by Health Canada. Among those who did not support the proposals, opinions were split between those that felt the proposed regulations were too restrictive, and those that felt more regulations are required. A significant proportion of stakeholders asked questions and sought further details on how the regulations and Health Canada would approach the approval of natural health products and non-prescription drugs containing cannabis.
Issues raised included potential limits on the amount of cannabinoids such as THC or CBD in different products, where these products could be sold, how they could be promoted, and whether or not pediatric formulations could be marketed. As part of the initial regulations required for the orderly implementation of the proposed Cannabis Act, the existing authorizations for health products containing cannabis established by the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations would be maintained.
This means that currently-authorized health products will continue to be marketed and remain available to Canadians as they are now. As noted in Budget , Health Canada is undertaking work to evaluate the drug review and approval process so that Canadians in need have access to an array of medicinal options that are safe, effective, and of high quality.
For these types of products, the regulations would outline the applicable requirements under the proposed Cannabis Act. Additional consideration is also being given to appropriate promotional controls for prescription drugs under the proposed Cannabis Act. For packaging and labelling, it is proposed that prescription drugs with cannabis only be subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations. As proposed in the discussion paper, medical devices used for consuming cannabis for medical purposes would be subject to certain prohibitions for cannabis accessories under the proposed Cannabis Act.
This would include requiring the support of a healthcare practitioner for their sale to young persons. The regulations, and updated policy guidance, would also clarify how medical devices combined with, or for use with, prescription drugs will be overseen. As a result of ongoing analysis and feedback, it is proposed that further consultation take place with Canadians on the proposed approach for any potential new non-prescription drugs and NHPs containing cannabis.
The consultations will focus on the appropriate level of regulatory oversight and evidence requirements to enable the approval of any potential new health products that could be available without the oversight of a physician. A significant number of respondents suggested that the government clarify the definition of cannabis accessories when dealing with things used in the production of cannabis, so that it would not cover products like fertilizers, pesticides, or gardening supplies.
These respondents noted that, with respect to fertilizers and pesticides, these categories of products are already regulated under existing federal legislation the Fertilizers Act and the Pest Control Products Act. In addition, respondents noted that prohibitions related to cannabis accessories designed to protect youth — for example the requirement that they only be sold behind the counter — should not necessarily apply with respect to things like soil or pots, which could be used in the production of cannabis.
In response to this feedback, consideration is being given to what measures, if any, are required in the final regulations to address stakeholder feedback. Evidence has shown that marijuana can effectively treat chemotherapy-induced nausea.
It might also reduce spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reduce the intensity of neuropathic pain. However, marijuana use can cause cognitive impairment and should be used with caution if you have a mental health condition.
In many places marijuana use is considered illegal for any purpose. Medical marijuana use is generally considered safe. But different strains of marijuana have different amounts of THC. This can make dosing marijuana difficult. If you have a mental health condition, use marijuana with caution. Marijuana use might worsen manic symptoms in people who have bipolar disorder. If used frequently, marijuana might increase the risk of depression. Marijuana use also might worsen depression symptoms. Research suggests that marijuana use increases the risk of psychosis in people who have schizophrenia.
Smoking marijuana can affect your memory and cognitive function and cause harmful cardiovascular effects, such as high blood pressure.
Table 3 summarizes the harms in both pain and general populations. Supplement 5 provides additional study-level data from pain studies not included in prior reviews and from studies on general harms. We identified 22 RCTs 21—42 from 2 recently published systematic reviews 10 , 11 and an additional 8 studies 5 RCTs [ 43—47 ] and 3 cohort studies [ 48—50 ] that met our inclusion criteria and were not included in prior reviews.
The primary methods of continuous pain assessment were a visual analogue scale from 0 to mm and a numerical rating scale NRS from 0 to 10 where 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated the worst possible pain. Thirteen trials examined the effects of cannabis-based preparations on neuropathic pain Table 1. Participants had central or peripheral neuropathic pain related to various health conditions. Overall, we found low-strength evidence that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients Table 2.
Studies generally did not find clinically significant between-group differences on continuous pain scales, but a higher proportion of intervention patients had clinically significant pain relief up to several months later. Most studies were small, few reported outcomes beyond 2 to 3 weeks, and none reported long-term outcomes.
In the largest RCT, patients with peripheral neuropathic pain self-titrated nabiximols up to a maximum dosage of 24 sprays per day or received a placebo Those who completed the study 79 in the nabiximols group and 94 in the placebo group and responded positively to the intervention had a significant decrease in pain odds ratio, 1. However, among all participants, including those who did not have an intervention response, the reduction in the NRS pain score did not reach clinical or statistical significance.
Cannabis users had a reduction in average pain intensity using a visual analogue scale from 0 to 10 that was stable across 4 time points over 1 year, but the change was small and not clinically significant 0.
Nine trials examined the effects of cannabis-based preparations on pain among patients with multiple sclerosis MS Table 1. Participants generally had intractable body pain or neuropathic pain related to a clinically confirmed diagnosis of MS. Overall, we found insufficient evidence to characterize the effects of cannabis on pain in patients with MS Table 2 because of the small number of methodologically rigorous studies, inconsistent findings across studies, lack of long-term outcomes, and small number of patients included in the trials.
Of the 3 low-ROB trials, 1 found small but clinically nonsignificant alleviation of pain at 5 weeks, 1 foundno difference in outcome, and a larger trial found that more intervention patients reported relief from body pain at 12 weeks Participants had moderate to severe intractable pain related to a clinically confirmed diagnosis of cancer, although the exact cause of pain was unspecified.
Overall, these trials provide insufficient evidence because of the small number of studies and their methodological limitations, including high attrition, exclusion of patients with variable pain scores, use of some nonvalidated measures, and lack of clarity about randomization and blinding procedures Table 2. Two trials 21 , 46 and 3 cohort studies 48—50 examined the effects of cannabis-based preparations on pain among patients with other or mixed pain conditions, including fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory abdominal pain Table 1.
Overall, evidence was insufficient because of the inconsistent results and the paucity of methodologically rigorous studies Table 2. Limitations of individual studies include lack of follow-up, inadequate allocation concealment, selection bias, high attrition, and lack of inclusion of nonnaive cannabis users.
Data from 2 systematic reviews examining cannabis for chronic pain suggest that cannabis use may be associated with a higher risk for short-term adverse effects 10 , However, the rates of adverse events did not significantly differ between groups in the additional pain trials we reviewed.
Although most reported adverse events were mild, such as dizziness and lightheadedness, some were serious, such as suicide attempts, paranoia, and agitation Table 3. An additional prospective observational study did not detect a difference in serious adverse events between a cannabis group Moderate-strength evidence from 2 well-designed cohort studies 52 , 53 suggests that low levels of cannabis smoking do not adversely affect lung function over about 20 years in young adults, but some evidence suggests that daily use may cause adverse pulmonary effects over an extended period Table 3.
Because of methodological limitations, including a lack of longitudinal exposure measurement and potential recall bias, 2 studies 55 , 56 give insufficient evidence about the effect of cannabis use on the risk for cardiovascular events.
A meta-analysis 59 of 9 case—control studies provides low-strength evidence that cannabis use is not associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancer odds ratio, 1.
Another meta-analysis 57 of 6 case—control studies provides low-strength evidence of no elevated risk for lung cancer with cannabis use odds ratio, 0. Insufficient evidence exists about the effects of cannabis on testicular 60 or transitional cell cancer 61 Table 3.
One systematic review 64 and 8 studies 65—71 , 74 consistently found an association between cannabis use specifically related to THC content and the development of psychotic symptoms low strength of evidence Table 3. The association was seen both in populations at risk for psychotic spectrum disorders and in average-risk populations. The possibility that cannabis contributes directly to the development of psychotic symptoms is supported but not proved by biological plausibility, evidence of a dose—response relationship, prospective cohort studies, and small experimental studies.
A systematic review of 6 longitudinal studies provides low-strength evidence of an association between cannabis use and exacerbation of manic symptoms in patients with known bipolar disorder.
The review found higher incidence of new-onset mania symptoms among populations without a diagnosis of bipolar disorder pooled odds ratio, 2. Two systematic reviews of studies in general populations provide moderate-strength evidence that active, long-term cannabis use is associated with small to moderate negative effects on many domains of cognitive function, but evidence on cognitive effects in past users is insufficient 72 , A meta-analysis of 4 epidemiologic studies found significantly increased odds of suicide death pooled odds ratio, 2.
However, our confidence in the findings is limited by inconsistent findings among included studies, inadequate assessment of exposure, and inadequate adjustment for confounding among the studies insufficient strength of evidence 62 , Moderate-strength evidence from a recent meta-analysis of 21 multinational observational studies suggests that acute cannabis intoxication is associated with a moderate increase in collision risk odds ratio, 1.
Long-term cannabis use has been associated with a severe form of cyclic vomiting called cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome 75— Serious infectious diseases, including aspergillosis 83—86 and tuberculosis, have also been associated with smoking cannabis 87 , Evidence of the effects of cannabis on violent behavior is mixed 89 , Cannabis use was associated with incident cannabis use disorder adjusted odds ratio, 9.
In a cross-sectional study of patients receiving daily opioid therapy for chronic pain, the prevalence of cannabis use disorder was 2. The prevalence of cannabis use disorder among the subgroup of current users, however, was not reported In our systematic review, we found limited evidence on the potential benefits and harms of cannabis use in chronic pain populations Tables 2 and 3.
We found low-strength evidence that cannabis preparations with precisely defined THC—cannabidiol content most in a 1: Most studies are small, many have methodological flaws, and the long-term effects are unclear given the brief follow-up of most studies.
Among neuropathic pain studies, we found a discrepancy between continuous and dichotomous pain outcomes. Possible interpretations are that cannabis is simply not consistently effective or that, although cannabis may not have clinically important effects on average, subgroups of patients may experience large effects. We did not find data to clarify which subgroups of patients are more or less likely to benefit.
Our findings complement several recent reviews. In 1 review, the authors concluded that low- to moderate-strength evidence supports the efficacy of cannabis in chronic pain populations, limited mainly to those with MS or neuropathic pain.
However, a separate group reviewed and reanalyzed a similar set of published articles and determined that insufficient to low-strength evidence supports the use of cannabis to treat chronic noncancer pain A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examined the biological and clinical effects of cannabis across a broad range of indications and concluded that there is substantial evidence of benefit for patients with chronic pain.
Although the overall conclusions seem to differ from our findings, the authors stipulated that the clinical improvements were modest and limited to neuropathic pain 93 , and they underscored the urgent need for better research clarifying the effects of cannabis.
Our review augments this report by using a systematic approach on a more focused topic chronic pain and harms as well as standard terminology for describing the strength of the body of evidence Even though we did not find strong, consistent evidence of benefit, clinicians will still need to engage in evidence-based discussions with patients managing chronic pain who are using or requesting to use cannabis.
Therefore, clinicians must understand what is known and unknown about its potential harms. We found moderate-strength evidence that light to moderate cannabis smoking does not adversely affect lung function over about 20 years. However, the limited data on the effects of heavy use suggest a possible deleterious effect on lung function over time 52 , We found low-strength evidence that light to moderate cannabis use is not associated with lung cancer or head and neck cancer diagnoses independent of tobacco use, but the data are limited to case—control studies and do not address heavy use.
We found insufficient evidence examining whether cannabis use is associated with cardiovascular events over the long term. Cannabis use has potentially serious mental health and adverse cognitive effects, although data are insufficient to characterize the magnitude of risk or in whom the risk is highest.
Cannabis seems to be associated with at least small, short-term deleterious effects on cognition in active users, but long-term effects in past users are uncertain. We found a consistent association between cannabis use and the development of psychotic symptoms over the short and long term. A large prospective cohort study in the United States found that cannabis use was associated with a substantial risk for incident cannabis use disorder and a smaller risk for incident alcohol and other substance use disorders Finally, we found some adverse effects that seem to be related to cannabis use and are important for clinicians to know for example, infectious disease complications, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and violent behavior , but the incidence of these effects has not been well-characterized.
Evidence-based nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies are the preferred initial methods for treating chronic pain Clinicians may struggle with treating chronic pain in patients who have not responded to first-line treatment, and cannabis may be perceived as a safer strategy in these patients The scale and severity of adverse events, including death, seen with opioids have not been described with cannabis in the literature although less research is available on cannabis than on opioids However, no studies have directly compared cannabis with opioids, and no good-quality data exist on how cannabis use affects opioid use and opioid-related adverse effects.
Cross-sectional studies suggest an association between co-occurring cannabis use and adverse opioid-related events that is, misuse or more refills among patients prescribed opioids 6 , 7 , 96— By contrast, an open-label study found that pain scores and opioid use decreased over 6 months in participants with chronic pain who initiated cannabis treatment, although confidence in the findings is limited by the large number of participants lost to follow-up The applicability of study data to current practice is limited in several ways.
The patient populations in many studies were highly selected, and some studies included a run-in period after which patients who did not respond were excluded from further study. The data on effectiveness largely come from trials examining formulations with precisely defined THC and cannabidiol content, which differs from the reality of clinical practice.
Even though dispensaries are increasingly labeling products' content, discrepancies often exist between labeled and measured content Moreover, the dose of THC assessed in many of the studies is substantially lower than that in products commonly available in dispensaries for example, 2.
Finally, the evidence base on harms is limited because studies include relatively few patients who are older, are chronically ill, or have a history of heavy and prolonged cannabis use. In observational studies, the exact dose of exposure to cannabis was rarely known because of recall bias, and the potency that is, in estimates of cannabis cigarettes smoked per day was impossible to assess.
On the other hand, this imprecision probably mirrors the uncertainty clinicians will face in discussing benefits and harms with their patients.
Our approach to synthesizing the literature also has limitations. Given the broad scope of our review, we relied on existing systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence. However, we also comprehensively searched for and included newer primary studies, included only good-quality systematic reviews, and reassessed the quality of primary pain studies included in prior reviews.
We excluded studies of synthetic prescription cannabinoids, in part because these were included in recent reviews and are not available in cannabis dispensaries. Regardless, inclusion of these studies would not have changed our overall findings because so few studies were available, they were methodologically flawed, and they had very small sample sizes. We examined harms in both chronic pain and general populations, although the degree to which harms data in general populations apply to patients with chronic pain is uncertain.
Finally, we focused specifically on pain outcomes in patients with chronic pain, but we acknowledge that other outcomes are also important in the treatment of chronic pain. In our larger report, we describe low-strength evidence that cannabis may reduce spasticity and improve sleep in patients with MS.
We found insufficient evidence regarding the effects of cannabis on these outcomes in other patient populations and regarding effects on quality of life and functional status in any population 8.
Virtually no conclusive information exists about the benefits of cannabis in chronic pain populations, and limited information is available on harms, so methodologically strong research in almost any area is likely to add to the strength of evidence see Table 8 of Supplement 5 for a list of important research gaps and Table 9 of Supplement 5 for a list of ongoing studies. Of note, many of the studies we found were done in European countries, suggesting that there may be fewer barriers to conducting cannabis-related research there than in the United States, where barriers are substantial.
Although cannabis is increasingly available for medical and recreational use, little methodologically rigorous evidence examines its effects in patients with chronic pain. Limited evidence suggests that it may alleviate neuropathic pain, but evidence in other pain populations is insufficient. Evidence is also limited on its association with an increased risk for nonserious short-term adverse effects and potentially serious mental health adverse effects, such as psychosis. National Conference of State Legislatures.
Overview of CFIA's role in cannabis regulation
Do you become addicted or dependent on marijuana? Learn all about this psychoactive drug's health effects, as well as the growing. Photo by NIDA What is marijuana? Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use: Overview: Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use. A plain-language research summary about marijuana, including how people use it, its effects on the brain and overall health, and treatment options (June ).