Search

Abstract Background The substitution of cannabis for alcohol and other drugs has been conceptualised in a harm reduction framework as where cannabis is used to reduce the negative side-effects, addiction potential, and social stigma of other drugs. There is currently mixed evidence with recent reviews suggesting cannabis co-use patterns may vary by age and ethnicity. Yet few studies have had large enough samples to examine this demographic variation in detail. Aims To explore the co-use of cannabis with alcohol and other drugs within demographic subgroups of a large sample of people who use cannabis. Specifically: (1) whether cannabis is being substituted for other drugs, and (2), whether cannabis use leads to more, less or the same level of other drug use. Method Online convenience survey promoted via Facebook™ completed by 23,500 New Zealand respondents. Those who had used cannabis and any of eight other substances in the same six-month period were asked if their use of cannabis had any impact on their use of each other substance (“a lot more”, “little more”, “no impact/same”, “little less”, “a lot less”). Frequency and quantity used of each other drug was compared by co-use group. Generalised logistic regression models were developed to predict co-use categories. Results Significant proportions reported cannabis use led to “less” alcohol (60%), synthetic cannabinoid (60%), morphine (44%) and methamphetamine (40%) use. Those who reported using “less” had lower frequency and amount used of other drugs. Approximately seven-out-ten reported cannabis use had “no impact” on LSD, MDMA, and cocaine use. One-in-five reported using cannabis led to “more” tobacco use. Young adults (21–35-years) were more likely to report cannabis use led to “less” drinking and methamphetamine use. Adolescent co-users (16–20 years) reported mixed impacts. Māori were more likely to report cannabis use resulted in “less” alcohol, tobacco, methamphetamine, and LSD use. Students and those living in cities were less likely to report cannabis use lowering use of other substances. Conclusion Cannabis and other drug co-use patterns are moderated by life stages, lifestyles, cultural perspectives, and urbanicity. Harm reduction initiatives and policy reforms should take account of these moderating factors.

This study developed a measurement tool to assess stringency and 'on-the-ground' impact of four key alcohol policy domains to create an alcohol policy index suitable for benchmarking alcohol policy and assessing change over time in middle- and high-income countries. It involved a collaboration between researchers in 12 diverse countries: New Zealand; Australia; England; Scotland; Netherlands; Vietnam; Thailand; South Africa; Turkey; Chile; Saint Kitts and Nevis and Mongolia. Data on the four most effective alcohol policy domains (availability, pricing policy, alcohol marketing, drink driving) were used to create an alcohol policy index based on their association with alcohol per capita consumption (APC) of commercial (recorded) alcohol. An innovation was the inclusion of measures of impact along with the stringency of the legislation or regulation. The resulting International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index showed a very high negative correlation (-0.91) with recorded APC. Greater affordability of alcohol, an impact measure taking into account prices paid and countries' Gross Domestic Product, was predictive of higher APC (-0.80). Countries in which more modes of alcohol marketing are legally allowed and used had higher APC. Legislation on outlet density and drink driving predicted APC whereas trading hours did not. While stringency and impact measures varied between domains in terms of relationship with APC, overall, there was a strong correlation between impact and stringency (0.77). The IAC Policy Index, which includes measures of policy stringency and 'on-the-ground' impacts in relation to four key policy areas, was found to be strongly associated with commercial alcohol consumed in a number of diverse country settings. It showed a larger relationship than previous indices that include more policy dimensions. The index provides a relatively simple tool for benchmarking and communication with policy makers to encourage a strong focus on uptake of these four most effective alcohol policies.

This study developed a measurement tool to assess stringency and ‘on-the-ground’ impact of four key alcohol policy domains to create an alcohol policy index suitable for benchmarking alcohol policy and assessing change over time in middle- and high-income countries. It involved a collaboration between researchers in 12 diverse countries: New Zealand; Australia; England; Scotland; Netherlands; Vietnam; Thailand; South Africa; Turkey; Chile; Saint Kitts and Nevis and Mongolia. Data on the four most effective alcohol policy domains (availability, pricing policy, alcohol marketing, drink driving) were used to create an alcohol policy index based on their association with alcohol per capita consumption (APC) of commercial (recorded) alcohol. An innovation was the inclusion of measures of impact along with the stringency of the legislation or regulation. The resulting International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index showed a very high negative correlation (-0.91) with recorded APC. Greater affordability of alcohol, an impact measure taking into account prices paid and countries’ Gross Domestic Product, was predictive of higher APC (-0.80). Countries in which more modes of alcohol marketing are legally allowed and used had higher APC. Legislation on outlet density and drink driving predicted APC whereas trading hours did not. While stringency and impact measures varied between domains in terms of relationship with APC, overall, there was a strong correlation between impact and stringency (0.77). The IAC Policy Index, which includes measures of policy stringency and ‘on-the-ground’ impacts in relation to four key policy areas, was found to be strongly associated with commercial alcohol consumed in a number of diverse country settings. It showed a larger relationship than previous indices that include more policy dimensions. The index provides a relatively simple tool for benchmarking and communication with policy makers to encourage a strong focus on uptake of these four most effective alcohol policies.