The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines: A Comprehensive Update of Evidence and Recommendations
Open accessAbstract
Background. Cannabis use is common in North America, especially among young people, and is associated with a risk of various acute and chronic adverse health outcomes. Cannabis control regimes are evolving, for example toward a national legalization policy in Canada, with the aim to improve public health, and thus require evidence-based interventions. As cannabis-related health outcomes may be influenced by behaviors that are modifiable by the user, evidence-based Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG)—akin to similar guidelines in other health fields—offer a valuable, targeted prevention tool to improve public health outcomes. Objectives. To systematically review, update, and quality-grade evidence on behavioral factors determining adverse health outcomes from cannabis that may be modifiable by the user, and translate this evidence into revised LRCUG as a public health intervention tool based on an expert consensus process. Search methods. We used pertinent medical search terms and structured search strategies, to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library databases, and reference lists primarily for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and additional evidence on modifiable risk factors for adverse health outcomes from cannabis use. Selection criteria. We included studies if they focused on potentially modifiable behavior-based factors for risks or harms for health from cannabis use, and excluded studies if cannabis use was assessed for therapeutic purposes. Data collection and analysis. We screened the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy and assessed the full texts of all potentially eligible studies for inclusion; 2 of the authors independently extracted the data of all studies included in this review. We created Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow-charts for each of the topical searches. Subsequently, we summarized the evidence by behavioral factor topic, quality-graded it by following standard (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE) criteria, and translated it into the LRCUG recommendations by the author expert collective on the basis of an iterative consensus process. Main results. For most recommendations, there was at least “substantial” (i.e., good-quality) evidence. We developed 10 major recommendations for lower-risk use: (1) the most effective way to avoid cannabis use–related health risks is abstinence, (2) avoid early age initiation of cannabis use (i.e., definitively before the age of 16 years), (3) choose low-potency tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or balanced THC-to-cannabidiol (CBD)–ratio cannabis products, (4) abstain from using synthetic cannabinoids, (5) avoid combusted cannabis inhalation and give preference to nonsmoking use methods, (6) avoid deep or other risky inhalation practices, (7) avoid high-frequency (e.g., daily or near-daily) cannabis use, (8) abstain from cannabis-impaired driving, (9) populations at higher risk for cannabis use–related health problems should avoid use altogether, and (10) avoid combining previously mentioned risk behaviors (e.g., early initiation and high-frequency use). Authors’ conclusions. Evidence indicates that a substantial extent of the risk of adverse health outcomes from cannabis use may be reduced by informed behavioral choices among users. The evidence-based LRCUG serve as a population-level education and intervention tool to inform such user choices toward improved public health outcomes. However, the LRCUG ought to be systematically communicated and supported by key regulation measures (e.g., cannabis product labeling, content regulation) to be effective. All of these measures are concretely possible under emerging legalization regimes, and should be actively implemented by regulatory authorities. The population-level impact of the LRCUG toward reducing cannabis use–related health risks should be evaluated. Public health implications. Cannabis control regimes are evolving, including legalization in North America, with uncertain impacts on public health. Evidence-based LRCUG offer a potentially valuable population-level tool to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes from cannabis use among (especially young) users in legalization contexts, and hence to contribute to improved public health outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review.
Moore, T. H., Zammit, S., Lingford-Hughes, A., Barnes, T. R., Jones, P. B., Burke, M., & Lewis, G. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61162-3 · Cited by 2,224
Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife
Meier, M. H., Caspi, A., Ambler, A., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Keefe, R. S. E., McDonald, K., Ward, A., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1206820109 · Cited by 1,523
Katzman, M. A., Bleau, P., Blier, P., Chokka, P., Kjernisted, K., Van Ameringen, M., & the Canadian Anxiety Guidelines Initiative Group on behalf of the Anxiety Disorders Association of Canada/Association Canadienne des troubles anxieux and McGill University (2014) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-14-s1-s1 · Cited by 1,090
Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study.
Patton, G. C., Coffey, C., Carlin, J. B., Degenhardt, L., Lynskey, M., & Hall, W. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1195 · Cited by 997
Self-citationEffects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review
Volkow, N. D., Swanson, J. M., Evins, A. E., DeLisi, L. E., Meier, M. H., Gonzalez, R., Bloomfield, M. A. P., Curran, H. V., & Baler, R. (2016) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3278 · Cited by 867
Crean, R. D., Crane, N. A., & Mason, B. J. (2011) · Journal of Addiction Medicine · doi:10.1097/adm.0b013e31820c23fa · Cited by 732
Macleod, J., Oakes, R., Copello, A., Crome, I., Egger, M., Hickman, M., Oppenkowski, T., Stokes-Lampard, H., & Smith, G. D. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16200-4 · Cited by 639
Hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols
Jensen, R. P., Luo, W., Pankow, J. F., Strongin, R. M., & Peyton, D. H. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmc1413069 · Cited by 605
Gunn, J. K. L., Rosales, C. B., Center, K. E., Nuñez, A., Gibson, S. J., Christ, C., & Ehiri, J. E. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009986 · Cited by 576
Cannabis use and later life outcomes
Fergusson, D. M., & Boden, J. M. (2008) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02221.x · Cited by 526
Cited by
Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder
Connor, J. P., Stjepanović, D., Le Foll, B., Hoch, E., Budney, A. J., & Hall, W. D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00247-4 · Cited by 552
Hall, W., Stjepanović, D., Caulkins, J., Lynskey, M., Leung, J., Campbell, G., & Degenhardt, L. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31789-1 · Cited by 357
Self-citationRussell, C., Rueda, S., Room, R., Tyndall, M., & Fischer, B. (2018) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.11.008 · Cited by 298
Self-citationFischer, B., Robinson, T., Bullen, C., Curran, V., Jutras-Aswad, D., Medina-Mora, M. E., Pacula, R. L., Rehm, J., Room, R., Brink, W. V. D., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103381 · Cited by 236
Halladay, J., Scherer, J., MacKillop, J., Woock, R., Petker, T., Linton, V., & Munn, C. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107565 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- Fischer, B., Russell, C., Sabioni, P., van den Brink, W., Le Foll, B., Hall, W., Rehm, J., & Room, R.
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2017-08
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e1-e12
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- OpenAlex
- W2707721172
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 24.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines: A Comprehensive Update of Evidence and Recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2105/ajph.2017.303818
- The paper
- Fischer, B., Russell, C., Sabioni, P., van den Brink, W., Le Foll, B., Hall, W., Rehm, J., & Room, R. (2017). Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines: A Comprehensive Update of Evidence and Recommendations. American Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2017.303818
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.