Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 100, Issue 2, pp 101–103 | Cite as

Cannabis Use in Canada: The Need for a ‘Public Health’ Approach

  • Benedikt FischerEmail author
  • Jürgen Rehm
  • Wayne Hall
Commentary
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in Canada, used by 1 in 7 adults and 1 in 4 students. Other forms of drug use (e.g., alcohol or injection drug use) are increasingly approached within a public health policy framework that focuses on reducing harms rather than use per se. Cannabis, by contrast, remains formally controlled by a criminal justice approach that focuses on enforcing abstinence. Its use is associated with a variety of possible acute or chronic health problems that include cognitive and respiratory impairment, psychotic episodes, dependence and injury risk. The incidence of these outcomes, however, is predicted by early onset and a high frequency and length of use that only apply to a minority of users. In a public health framework, cannabis use - especially in young populations - should be systematically monitored and high-risk patterns of use screened for in appropriate settings, e.g., schools and GP offices. Evidence-based primary and secondary prevention, treatment and enforcement need to be targeted at these high-risk patterns of use. Given the large cannabis user population, especially among young people, and the failure of the criminalization approach to discourage use, a public health framework for cannabis use is urgently needed in Canada.

Key words

Cannabis use public health morbidity policy interventions Canada 

Résumé

Le cannabis est la drogue illicite la plus consommée au Canada; il est utilisé par 1 adulte sur 7, et par 1 étudiant sur 4. Les autres formes de consommation de drogues (p. ex. l’alcool ou l’usage de drogues injectables) ont été examinées dans un cadre stratégique sur la santé publique qui vise à réduire les préjudices plutôt que l’utilisation en soi. Le cannabis, au contraire, demeure officiellement contrôlé par une approche de la justice pénale qui vise à contraindre l’abstinence. Son utilisation est associée à une variété de problèmes de santé graves et chroniques, notamment une insuffisance respiratoire et cognitive, des épisodes psychotiques, la dépendance et les risques de blessures. Toutefois, l’incidence de ces résultats est prédit par une consommation précoce et une fréquence et une longueur d’utilisation qui ne s’appliquent qu’à une minorité d’utilisateurs. Dans un cadre de santé publique, l’utilisation du cannabis, en particulier chez les populations de jeunes, devrait systématiquement être surveillée, et les modèles d’utilisation à haut risque devraient être examinés dans les milieux appropriés, p. ex. les écoles et les bureaux GP. La prévention primaire et secondaire fondée sur les preuves, le traitement et l’exécution de la loi doivent cibler ces modèles à haut risque d’utilisation. Étant donné la grande population de consommateurs de cannabis, en particulier chez les jeunes, et la défaillance de l’approche de criminalisation visant à décourager l’utilisation, la nécessité d’un cadre de santé publique pour la consommation de cannabis est urgente au Canada.

Mots clés

consommation de cannabis santé publique morbidité politique interventions Canada 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adlaf E, Begin P, Sawka E. Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A National Survey of Canadians’ use of Alcohol and Other Drugs: Prevalence of use and related harms - a detailed report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adlaf E, Paglia-Boak A. Drug use among Ontario students 1977-2007: OSDUHS highlights. Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hall W. What’s in a name? Addiction 2007;102(5):692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Room R, Babor T, Rehm J. Alcohol and public health: A review. Lancet 2005;365(9458):519–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunt N, Trace M, Bewley-Taylor D. Report 4: Reducing drug related harms to health: A review of the global evidence. London, UK: The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall W, Babor T. Cannabis use and public health: Assessing the burden. Addiction 2000;95(4):485–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer B, Ala-Leppilampi K, Single E, Robins A. Cannabis law reform in Canada: Is the “saga of promise, hesitation and retreat” coming to an end? Can J Criminol Crim Justice 2003;July:265–97.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gable R. Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly abused psychoactive substances. Addiction 2004;99(6):686–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rehm J, Gnam W, Popova S, Baliunas D, Brochu S, Fischer B, et al. The costs of alcohol, illegal drugs and tobacco in Canada, 2002. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2007;68(6):886–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall W, Solowij N. Adverse effects of cannabis. Lancet 1998;352(9140):1611–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall W, Pacula R. Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iversen L. The Science of Marijuana. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rhodes T, Stimson G, Fitch C, Ball A, Renton A. Rapid assessment, injecting drug use, and public health. Lancet 1999;354(9172):65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kosterman R, Hawkins J, Guo J, Catalano R, Abbott R. The dynamics of alcohol and marijuana initiation: Patterns and predictors of first use in adolescence. Am J Public Health 2000;90(3):360–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paglia A, Room R. Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature review and recommendations. J Prim Prev 1999;20(1):3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirby D, Short L, Collins J, Rugg D, Kolbe L, Howard M, et al. School-based programs to reduce sexual risk behaviors: A review of effectiveness. Public Health Rep 1994;109(3):339–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Copeland J, Martin G. Web-based interventions for substance use disorders: A qualitative review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2004;26(2):109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahmed K, Bray J. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): Toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Substance Abuse 2007;28(3):7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tobler N, Stratton H. Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. J Prim Prev 1997;18(1):71–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    West SL, O’Neal KK. Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. Am J Public Health 2004;94(6):1027–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swift W, Copeland J, Lenton S. Cannabis and harm reduction. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000;19:101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bondy SJ, Rehm J, Ashley MJ, Walsh G, Single E, Room R. Low-risk drinking guidelines: The scientific evidence. Can J Public Health 1999;90(4):264–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anthony J. Cannabis dependence: Its nature, consequences and treatment. In: Roffman R, Stephens R (Eds.), The Epidemiology of Cannabis Dependence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Urbanoski K, Strike C, Rush B. Individuals seeking treatment for cannabisrelated problems in Ontario: Demographic and clinical profile. Eur Addict Res 2005;11(3):115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nordstrom B, Levin F. Treatment of cannabis use disorder: A review of the literature. Am J Addict 2007;16(5):331–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Silver W. Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada 2006. Statistics Canada 2007;27(5).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacCoun R, Reuter P. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 1997;278:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutton A, McMillan E. Criminal justice perspectives on South Australia’s cannabis expiation notice procedures. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000;19:281–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Strang J, Witton J, Hall W. Improving the quality of the cannabis debate: Defining the different domains. BMJ 2000;320(7227):108–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CARMHA, Faculty of Health SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH)University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.School of Population HealthUniversity of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations