Daniel Ageze, Renee Dell'Acqua, Thomas D Marcotte, Jill Rybar, Sara Baird, Alice Gold, Tom Shaughnessy, Ilene Lanin-Kettering, Linda Hill
{"title":"Medicinal and combined medicinal/recreational cannabis use in California following the passage of Proposition 64.","authors":"Daniel Ageze, Renee Dell'Acqua, Thomas D Marcotte, Jill Rybar, Sara Baird, Alice Gold, Tom Shaughnessy, Ilene Lanin-Kettering, Linda Hill","doi":"10.1186/s42238-025-00285-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016, reshaped cannabis use in California. This study explores the use patterns of people who use cannabis for medicinal-only and combined medicinal and recreational use after implementation of Proposition 64.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quantitative, population-based online questionnaire included 4,020 current cannabis users, 523 former users, and 635 non-users. This analysis focuses on participants who self-identified as using cannabis for medicinal-only (n = 711) or both medicinal and recreational (M + R, n = 1719) purposes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty one percent of current cannabis users report medicinal use. Medicinal-only users were more likely to be female (OR 1.6, p < 0.001), have kids in household (OR 1.5, p < 0.001), and began cannabis use later (mean age 34 vs. 23, p < 0.001). Pain relief was the predominant reason for use, followed by sleep, anxiety, and stress relief. While both groups reported positive effects, M + R users experienced more negative side effects. Fewer medicinal-only users cited a desire to \"feel the high,\" (42% vs. 75% M + R, p < 0.001). Medicinal-only users felt less comfortable discussing cannabis with primary care providers than M + R users (75% vs 83%, p < 0.01). All users were more likely to seek information online (44-57%) or from friends/family (47-52%) than health professionals (26-27%). Dispensaries were the main cannabis source for both medicinal groups (72% M vs. 84% M + R, p < 0.01), with licensure being very or extremely important (72% M, 66% M + R, p < 0.01). Monthly spending for medicinal-only users was lower ($127 vs. $186 for M + R, p < 0.001), and they were more likely than M + R users to wait before feeling safe to drive after using cannabis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>People who use medicinal cannabis alone vary in key areas from people who use cannabis for both medicinal and recreational reasons. The need for better patient-provider relationships and clinically informed guidance is evident to support medicinal cannabis users.</p>","PeriodicalId":101310,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cannabis research","volume":"7 1","pages":"44"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12255994/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cannabis research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-025-00285-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016, reshaped cannabis use in California. This study explores the use patterns of people who use cannabis for medicinal-only and combined medicinal and recreational use after implementation of Proposition 64.
Methods: A quantitative, population-based online questionnaire included 4,020 current cannabis users, 523 former users, and 635 non-users. This analysis focuses on participants who self-identified as using cannabis for medicinal-only (n = 711) or both medicinal and recreational (M + R, n = 1719) purposes.
Results: Sixty one percent of current cannabis users report medicinal use. Medicinal-only users were more likely to be female (OR 1.6, p < 0.001), have kids in household (OR 1.5, p < 0.001), and began cannabis use later (mean age 34 vs. 23, p < 0.001). Pain relief was the predominant reason for use, followed by sleep, anxiety, and stress relief. While both groups reported positive effects, M + R users experienced more negative side effects. Fewer medicinal-only users cited a desire to "feel the high," (42% vs. 75% M + R, p < 0.001). Medicinal-only users felt less comfortable discussing cannabis with primary care providers than M + R users (75% vs 83%, p < 0.01). All users were more likely to seek information online (44-57%) or from friends/family (47-52%) than health professionals (26-27%). Dispensaries were the main cannabis source for both medicinal groups (72% M vs. 84% M + R, p < 0.01), with licensure being very or extremely important (72% M, 66% M + R, p < 0.01). Monthly spending for medicinal-only users was lower ($127 vs. $186 for M + R, p < 0.001), and they were more likely than M + R users to wait before feeling safe to drive after using cannabis.
Conclusion: People who use medicinal cannabis alone vary in key areas from people who use cannabis for both medicinal and recreational reasons. The need for better patient-provider relationships and clinically informed guidance is evident to support medicinal cannabis users.