Average Intoxication as a Proxy for Cannabis Use

Brianna R. Altman, M. Mian, Luna F Ueno, M. Earleywine
{"title":"Average Intoxication as a Proxy for Cannabis Use","authors":"Brianna R. Altman, M. Mian, Luna F Ueno, M. Earleywine","doi":"10.26828/cannabis.2021.01.000.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessing cannabis use is challenging due to the lack of standardized doses, differing potencies among products, and the potential for sharing with others. Although legalization of cannabis might give users a better sense of the quantity purchased and THC/CBD composition of products, issues in assessment and measurement can still preclude researchers from understanding use patterns. Given these challenges, the present work examines whether an individual’s average level of intoxication after cannabis consumption might serve as a better proxy for cannabis use than quantity of use. Data was aggregated from several studies related to cannabis use and health behaviors and collapsed across common variables (N = 2,659, Mean age = 34.08, 61.9% Male, 84.8% Caucasian). Our sample reported using cannabis either six or seven days per week, consuming approximately 1.12 ounces of cannabis per month (SD = .35 ounces), attaining an average intoxication of 3.49 on a scale from 0 (“Not at all”) to 6 (“Extremely high;” SD = 1.21), and experiencing a mild amount of cannabis-induced impairment as measured by the Cannabis-Associated Problems Questionnaire (CAPQ; M = 8.21, SD = 9.08). In this sample of frequent users, average intoxication levels were significantly related to cannabis problems (r = .153, p < .001) while quantity per month appeared to be unrelated (r = .005, p = .798). Using Meng’s (1992) procedure for comparing correlated correlation coefficients, these relations were found to significantly differ from each other (Z = - 5.53, p < .001). Our results provide preliminary evidence supporting cannabis-induced intoxication as a better proxy for cannabis use than quantity consumed. Individuals might more accurately remember their experiences of being high as opposed to recalling how much they consumed over a month’s span. Future work should continue to examine relations between intoxication and other indices of cannabis use to confirm and extend our findings.","PeriodicalId":383892,"journal":{"name":"Abstracts from the 2020 Virtual Scientific Meeting of the Research Society on Marijuana July 24th, 2020","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abstracts from the 2020 Virtual Scientific Meeting of the Research Society on Marijuana July 24th, 2020","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26828/cannabis.2021.01.000.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessing cannabis use is challenging due to the lack of standardized doses, differing potencies among products, and the potential for sharing with others. Although legalization of cannabis might give users a better sense of the quantity purchased and THC/CBD composition of products, issues in assessment and measurement can still preclude researchers from understanding use patterns. Given these challenges, the present work examines whether an individual’s average level of intoxication after cannabis consumption might serve as a better proxy for cannabis use than quantity of use. Data was aggregated from several studies related to cannabis use and health behaviors and collapsed across common variables (N = 2,659, Mean age = 34.08, 61.9% Male, 84.8% Caucasian). Our sample reported using cannabis either six or seven days per week, consuming approximately 1.12 ounces of cannabis per month (SD = .35 ounces), attaining an average intoxication of 3.49 on a scale from 0 (“Not at all”) to 6 (“Extremely high;” SD = 1.21), and experiencing a mild amount of cannabis-induced impairment as measured by the Cannabis-Associated Problems Questionnaire (CAPQ; M = 8.21, SD = 9.08). In this sample of frequent users, average intoxication levels were significantly related to cannabis problems (r = .153, p < .001) while quantity per month appeared to be unrelated (r = .005, p = .798). Using Meng’s (1992) procedure for comparing correlated correlation coefficients, these relations were found to significantly differ from each other (Z = - 5.53, p < .001). Our results provide preliminary evidence supporting cannabis-induced intoxication as a better proxy for cannabis use than quantity consumed. Individuals might more accurately remember their experiences of being high as opposed to recalling how much they consumed over a month’s span. Future work should continue to examine relations between intoxication and other indices of cannabis use to confirm and extend our findings.
平均中毒作为大麻使用的代理
由于缺乏标准化剂量、不同产品的效力不同以及可能与他人共享,评估大麻使用情况具有挑战性。虽然大麻合法化可能会让使用者更好地了解所购买的数量和产品的四氢大麻酚/CBD成分,但评估和测量方面的问题仍然会妨碍研究人员了解使用模式。鉴于这些挑战,目前的工作研究了一个人在大麻消费后的平均中毒水平是否可以比使用数量更好地代表大麻的使用。数据汇总了与大麻使用和健康行为相关的几项研究,并在常见变量中进行了分解(N = 2,659,平均年龄= 34.08,61.9%为男性,84.8%为高加索人)。我们的样本报告说,每周使用大麻6天或7天,每月消耗约1.12盎司大麻(SD = 0.35盎司),在0(“完全没有”)到6(“极高”;SD = 1.21)的范围内,平均中毒程度为3.49,并且根据大麻相关问题问卷(CAPQ;M = 8.21, sd = 9.08)。在这个频繁使用者的样本中,平均中毒水平与大麻问题显著相关(r = .153, p < .001),而每月的数量似乎无关(r = 0.005, p = .798)。使用孟(1992)的程序比较相关系数,发现这些关系彼此之间存在显著差异(Z = - 5.53, p < .001)。我们的研究结果提供了初步证据,支持大麻引起的中毒是大麻使用比消耗数量更好的代理。个人可能更准确地记住他们的high体验,而不是回忆他们在一个月内消耗了多少。未来的工作应继续检查中毒和大麻使用的其他指标之间的关系,以确认和扩展我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信