Recreational Cannabis Legalization: No Contribution to Rising Prescription Stimulants in the USA.

IF 3.6 3区医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

Pharmacopsychiatry Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1055/a-2334-6253

Garrett D Alexander, Luke R Cavanah, Jessica L Goldhirsh, Leighton Y Huey, Brian J Piper

{"title":"Recreational Cannabis Legalization: No Contribution to Rising Prescription Stimulants in the USA.","authors":"Garrett D Alexander, Luke R Cavanah, Jessica L Goldhirsh, Leighton Y Huey, Brian J Piper","doi":"10.1055/a-2334-6253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: There have been substantial increases in the use of Schedule II stimulants in the United States. Schedule II stimulants are the gold standard treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but also carry the risk of addiction. Since the neurocognitive deficits seen in ADHD resemble those of chronic cannabis use, and the rise in stimulant use is incompletely understood, this study sought to determine if recreational cannabis (RC) legalization increased distribution rates of Schedule II stimulants.Methods: The distribution of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and methylphenidate were extracted from the ARCOS database of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The three-year population-corrected slopes of distribution before and after RC sales were evaluated.Results: Total stimulant distribution rates were significantly higher in states with RC sales after (p=0.049), but not before (p=0.221), program implementation compared to states without RC. Significant effects of time (p<0.001) and RC sales status (p=0.045) were observed, while time x RC sales status interaction effects were not significant (p=0.406).Discussion: RC legalization did not contribute to a more pronounced rise in Schedule II stimulant distribution in states. Future studies could explore the impact of illicit cannabis use on stimulant rates and the impact of cannabis sales on distribution rates of non-stimulant ADHD pharmacotherapies and ADHD diagnoses.","PeriodicalId":19783,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacopsychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"249-254"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacopsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2334-6253","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There have been substantial increases in the use of Schedule II stimulants in the United States. Schedule II stimulants are the gold standard treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but also carry the risk of addiction. Since the neurocognitive deficits seen in ADHD resemble those of chronic cannabis use, and the rise in stimulant use is incompletely understood, this study sought to determine if recreational cannabis (RC) legalization increased distribution rates of Schedule II stimulants.

Methods: The distribution of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and methylphenidate were extracted from the ARCOS database of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The three-year population-corrected slopes of distribution before and after RC sales were evaluated.

Results: Total stimulant distribution rates were significantly higher in states with RC sales after (p=0.049), but not before (p=0.221), program implementation compared to states without RC. Significant effects of time (p<0.001) and RC sales status (p=0.045) were observed, while time x RC sales status interaction effects were not significant (p=0.406).

Discussion: RC legalization did not contribute to a more pronounced rise in Schedule II stimulant distribution in states. Future studies could explore the impact of illicit cannabis use on stimulant rates and the impact of cannabis sales on distribution rates of non-stimulant ADHD pharmacotherapies and ADHD diagnoses.

查看原文本刊更多论文

娱乐性大麻合法化：美国处方兴奋剂增加与大麻合法化无关。

导言：在美国，二类兴奋剂的使用大幅增加。第二类兴奋剂是治疗注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）的金标准，但也有成瘾的风险。由于注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）的神经认知缺陷与长期吸食大麻相似，而且人们对兴奋剂使用的增加还不完全了解，因此本研究试图确定娱乐性大麻（RC）合法化是否会增加附表 II 兴奋剂的销售率：从缉毒署的 ARCOS 数据库中提取了苯丙胺、利眠宁和哌醋甲酯的分布情况。对 RC 销售前后三年的人口校正分布斜率进行了评估：与未实施 RC 的州相比，在实施 RC 计划后（p=0.049），而在实施 RC 计划前（p=0.221），有 RC 销售的州的兴奋剂总销售率明显较高。观察到时间的显著影响（pp=0.045），而时间 x RC 销售状况的交互影响不显著（p=0.406）：讨论：RC 合法化并未导致各州附表 II 兴奋剂销售量的明显上升。今后的研究可以探讨非法使用大麻对兴奋剂使用率的影响，以及大麻销售对非兴奋剂多动症药物疗法和多动症诊断分布率的影响。

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

Pharmacopsychiatry 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

7.10

自引率

9.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Covering advances in the fi eld of psychotropic drugs, Pharmaco psychiatry provides psychiatrists, neuroscientists and clinicians with key clinical insights and describes new avenues of research and treatment. The pharmacological and neurobiological bases of psychiatric disorders are discussed by presenting clinical and experimental research.