Search

Background and aims Prohibitions on producing, distributing and selling cannabis are loosening in various jurisdictions around the world. This paper describes the diversification of cannabis supply laws and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for learning from these changes. Methods We document changes in cannabis supply laws that de jure legalized cannabis production for medical and/or non-medical purposes (excluding industrial hemp) in Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. We also highlight challenges to evaluating these legal changes based on our experiences studying cannabis laws and policies in the United States. Findings As of August 2016, two countries have passed laws to legalize large-scale cannabis production for non-medical purposes at the national (Uruguay) or subnational level (four US states). At least nine other countries legally allow (or will soon allow) cannabis to be supplied for medicinal purposes. Most of the changes in cannabis supply laws have occurred since 2010. The data available in most countries are inadequate for rigorously evaluating the changes in cannabis supply laws. Conclusion The evidence base for assessing changes in cannabis supply laws remains weak. Efforts should focus upon collecting information about quantities consumed and market transactions as well as validating self-report surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers news briefs related to addiction as of 2016. The unregulated cannabidiol (CBD) market in Great Britain has been halted by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The public is supporting minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol products in Great Britain. A World Health Organization (WHO) report has found that the alcohol-attributable mortality burden has increased slightly in Europe since 1990.

Background and Aims: Adaptations with different modes of delivery and target addictions have found highly divergent rates of success for Community Reinforcement Approach and Family Training (CRAFT). This study aims to clarify which (1) treatment components and (2) participant characteristics contribute to rates of identified patient (IP) treatment entry. Method: Systematic review of CRAFT evaluation studies of all designs (controlled and uncontrolled) with data synthesis and narrative analysis of addiction treatment services and university research departments in North America and Europe. Results: A total of 691 concerned significant others (CSOs), predominately female spouses/parents, participating in 20 distinct treatment conditions from 14 studies. The main outcome of IP treatment entry rate reported by CSOs up to 12 months after starting CRAFT with key predictors/correlates including IP addiction, IP–CSO relationship, CRAFT modality and integration of treatment for IP. Meta‐analysis found CRAFT to be twice as effective as controls/comparison groups. Multi‐modality treatment, including both individual and group sessions, yielded the highest IP treatment entry rates (77 and 86%), with progressively lower rates for individual (12.5–71%), group (60%) and self‐directed workbook (13.3–40%) modalities. While all five studies targeting gambling addiction had consistently low rates (12.5–23%), other treatment components, including therapist training, treatment fidelity and integrating treatment for the IP, were implicated. Conclusions: Adaptations of Community Reinforcement Approach and Family Training for different delivery modalities and addictions have yielded widely varying rates of treatment engagement for the identified patient, with those offering the most comprehensive support to the concerned significant other, including individual and group sessions, having highest levels of engagement success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentary to: Understanding and learning from the diversification of cannabis supply laws [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]