{"title":"Who uses legal cannabis and why? Cluster profiles of participants in a Swiss regulated sales pilot trial","authors":"Maëlle Dreifuss Bisson , Tamara Corino , Tatiana Aboulafia Brakha , Federico Seragnoli , Laura Toso , Sandro Cattacin , Daniele Zullino , Lucas Spierer , Lucien Rochat","doi":"10.1016/j.dadr.2026.100445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As cannabis regulation expands, it is important to understand who enrolls in legal non-medical cannabis programs and how participant profiles relate to harm. We identified participant profiles in Geneva’s pilot trial, <em>La Cannabinothèque</em>, using motives for cannabis use, knowledge of lower-risk use, and perceived risk, and examined differences in key outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Baseline data from 1290 people who use cannabis (PWUC) were analysed. Hierarchical clustering (Ward) followed by K-means refinement supported a four-cluster solution (Cramer’s V = 0.563). Clusters were compared on problematic cannabis use and consumption frequency, mental health symptoms, and quality of life.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Cluster 1 (<em>High motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Moderate risk perception</em>; 9.9%) showed high endorsement of all motives, lower-risk knowledge, and moderate to elevated perceived risk, and had the highest problematic use/frequency and poorer health indicators. Cluster 2 (<em>Moderate motives – Average safer-use knowledge – Low risk perception</em>; 26.7%) had moderate motives (relatively higher enhancement/social), average knowledge, lower perceived risk, and the lowest problematic use with better health indicators. Cluster 3 (<em>Low motives – High safer-use knowledge – High risk perception</em>; 29.4%) combined low-to-average motives with the highest knowledge and perceived risk, yet showed frequent use and problematic use comparable to Cluster 1. Cluster 4 (<em>Minimal motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Very low risk perception</em>; 34.0%) reported minimal motives, low knowledge and perceived risk, and low use/cannabis-related harms; members were older with later initiation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Findings support the link between coping-related motivation and problematic use, but the high-risk profile of Cluster 3 despite strong knowledge and risk awareness suggests that information and perception alone may not reduce harm. Profile-tailored harm reduction and integrated support may be needed within regulated cannabis frameworks.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72841,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","volume":"19 ","pages":"Article 100445"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724626000387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
As cannabis regulation expands, it is important to understand who enrolls in legal non-medical cannabis programs and how participant profiles relate to harm. We identified participant profiles in Geneva’s pilot trial, La Cannabinothèque, using motives for cannabis use, knowledge of lower-risk use, and perceived risk, and examined differences in key outcomes.
Methods
Baseline data from 1290 people who use cannabis (PWUC) were analysed. Hierarchical clustering (Ward) followed by K-means refinement supported a four-cluster solution (Cramer’s V = 0.563). Clusters were compared on problematic cannabis use and consumption frequency, mental health symptoms, and quality of life.
Results
Cluster 1 (High motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Moderate risk perception; 9.9%) showed high endorsement of all motives, lower-risk knowledge, and moderate to elevated perceived risk, and had the highest problematic use/frequency and poorer health indicators. Cluster 2 (Moderate motives – Average safer-use knowledge – Low risk perception; 26.7%) had moderate motives (relatively higher enhancement/social), average knowledge, lower perceived risk, and the lowest problematic use with better health indicators. Cluster 3 (Low motives – High safer-use knowledge – High risk perception; 29.4%) combined low-to-average motives with the highest knowledge and perceived risk, yet showed frequent use and problematic use comparable to Cluster 1. Cluster 4 (Minimal motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Very low risk perception; 34.0%) reported minimal motives, low knowledge and perceived risk, and low use/cannabis-related harms; members were older with later initiation.
Conclusions
Findings support the link between coping-related motivation and problematic use, but the high-risk profile of Cluster 3 despite strong knowledge and risk awareness suggests that information and perception alone may not reduce harm. Profile-tailored harm reduction and integrated support may be needed within regulated cannabis frameworks.