Category: Cannabis

Introduction

Drug Aware is a campaign run in Western Australia to combat cannabis abuse. Stakeholders treat the consequences cannabis abuse seriously, and therefore prioritize action to discourage people from the drug. The paper will examine Drug Aware in terms of conceptual framework, planning and evaluation structures that are in place, the compliance it exhibits with regard to conventional health promotional initiatives. These include the Ottawa Charter, and the extent to which the campaigns objectives are representative of what is needed to solve the problem at hand, which is, preventing those who have not began using cannabis from doing so, enabling those who are using abandon it or reduce, and encourage those with problems because of its use to seek help. The paper will present these aspects of the Drug Aware campaign in Western Australia in relation to health promotion principles. It will also shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the campaign, taking a step further to make suggestions for improvement. A conclusion summing up the issues covered in this appraisal will follow.

Drug Aware: An Overview

Drug Aware is a collaborative effort between the Government of Western Australia and the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies (WANADA). Through message generation and dissemination, Drug Aware reaches out to people whose age range lies between 12 years and 29 years. At the end of the day, everyone in Western Australia regardless of age is a target of this campaign that is geared towards substance abuse. The Drug Aware achieves this by increasing knowledge about health risks of cannabis use among the at-risk age groups. There are media channels used by Drug Aware campaigners. Nearly all of them utilize message dissemination and they are as follows:

1. Using online message transmission methods such as Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, and other websites such as the Drug Aware campaign that has information pertaining to the Drug Aware initiative (Drug Aware, 2011)
2. Youth festivals
3. Outdoor advertising and cinema advertising
4. Radio and television outreach

Besides dissemination of anti-cannabis use messages to create awareness, the Drug Aware campaign involves other cannabis-use prevention strategies. It provides information on treatment options available to cannabis users hooked to the habit. This approach is particularly important in rehabilitating cannabis users who are prone to cannabis dependence. The Drug Aware campaigns messages discourage the advertising of alcohol or tobacco near schools or learning institutions.

The involvement of many media channels Drug Aware helps support its campaign against cannabis use, and this is essential for health promotion (McQueen 2001, 261-262). In particular, the dissemination strategy helps people to become aware of the health risks of substance abuse and refrain from cannabis use (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003). Thus, the use of multiple media platforms by Drug Aware campaigns is primarily to increase its outreach. In effect, the Drug Aware campaigns will inform the community of the risks associated with cannabis use.

Cannabis Abuse

Cannabis abuse is a serious problem in Western Australia. According to the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Western Australia government, there is a direct relationship between cannabis abuse and crime (Haynes et al., 2010, p. 14). The Drug and Alcohol Office further notes that abuse of cannabis closely associated with harm to individuals, including disability and death (2010, p.14). As an indicator of how serious the cannabis issue is in Western Australia, politicians have joined the discussion with liberals promising tougher laws regarding cannabis. These politicians describe current laws as soft, and claim that they send the wrong message to young people (AAP, Perth Now, August 2008). In the liberals view, cannabis is neither soft nor harmless, a view that is shared by the other stakeholders who are working with the government of Western Australia to eliminate cannabis.

Best Practices in Controlling Cannabis: A Literature Review

Cannabis abuse poses serious health problems to users. Psychosis is one of the risks that users run into (Henquet et al., 2005, p. 11). This assertion is also made by Williams McKim (2002, p. 400) and McLaren et al., (2008, p.12). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes report entitled Why we should care deals with sensitization and strict laws as one of the effective strategies in cannabis use prevention (Roffman, & Robert, 2006, p. 14). Additionally, in Australia, the National School Drug Education Strategy promotes a number of school-based educational programs for cannabis use prevention. These include affective education, sensitization/information dissemination, and skills on social resistance (Botvin, & Griffin, 2002, p. 92). Affective education involves discussions and didactic instruction to raise self-esteem and facilitate responsible decision-making among students. It often does not include information about drug use but emphasizes on interpersonal growth. Information dissemination (through audio/video programs, posters, pamphlets among others) is the most common approach to cannabis use prevention. It aims at increasing knowledge on drugs and arousing fear by emphasizing on the consequences of drug use to foster anti-drug attitudes among the youth. Furthermore, Botvin, and Griffin (2002, p. 101) recommend a generic approach that incorporates school-based and family-based prevention approaches in case of parental addiction to cannabis use.

Drug Aware utilizes campaigns in form of online sensitization materials as well as radio and posters that reach all members of the society. Community-based approaches to substance abuse prevention are highly effective as they increase knowledge and alter attitudes about cannabis use (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997, p. 11). The dissemination of information and creating community awareness on cannabis use underlie the Drug Aware campaigns.

Cannabis Abuse Risk Factors

Cannabis abuse is a result of a number of factors. Since it is a health problem, the paper considers factors that make an individual more likely to abuse cannabis as risk factors while those that make it less likely for an individual to abuse cannabis are protective factors. Interplay of risk factors and protective factors determine the outcomes in a community as far as cannabis abuse is concerned. The risk factors and protective factors for cannabis use are many and varied. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006, p. 2) identifies three categories of risk/protective factors that predispose adolescents to cannabis use. They include:

1. Government policy on cannabis use: A tough policy will make it harder for cannabis abusers to operate while laxity will create an atmosphere that is conducive.
2. Drug culture of a place: Cultures with beliefs that glorify cannabis will witness more abuse of the drug while those that avow cannabis will witness reduced use.
3. Public awareness campaigns from all stakeholders: Presence of parents, the government, and non-governmental organizations in the campaign against cannabis will reduce its use while a single party approach will realize less success in fighting its use.

Other risk factors associated with onset of cannabis use among adolescents include; prior use of alcohol or tobacco, parental drug abuse, criminal activity and behavioural problems (Botvin, & Griffin, 2002, p. 99). The dissemination of information primarily involves the use of online media channels. However, the campaign also involves churches and learning institutions to disseminate the information (Drug Aware 2011). The involvement of multiple stakeholders is essential in dissemination of information to different segments of the population (Keleher, 2007, p. 113-115). The International Union for Health Promotion and Education report on health (IUHPE, 2000) also underscores a multi-sectoral approach. The messages designed and disseminated by Drug Aware provide information about the health and social consequences of cannabis abuse. The main aim is to foster individual and community attitudes towards anti-cannabis use. This is an effective implementation strategy in health promotion, as focuses on creating enabling conditions (De Leeuw 2007, pp. 55-58).

Drug Aware: A Conceptual Framework

Drug Awares activities rely on a socio-ecological model that takes into account social factors as well as the attributes of the region under consideration, in this case, Western Australia. Drug Aware recognizes that different domains of human occupation are interdependent, i.e. the schools, the neighbourhood, residences and the surrounding community within particular settings bear some interdependence. As such, this health promotion combines the evidence on appropriate actions in the specific community context before disseminating the messages. In this way, the planning of Drug Aware reflects the core concepts of social ecology that include recognition of the multi-faceted nature of environmental factors on health, environmental controllability to achieve well-being (through the emphasis on healthy lifestyles) and the value of involving behavioural, environmental and educational approaches during the awareness campaigns.

Besides that, Drug Aware employs a multi-pronged message dissemination strategy to increase its reach. Thus, the campaigns are community-wide. In particular, to reach a large number of youths, the campaign involves new media channels such as Twitter and You Tube; channels that are commonly used by the youth. The involvement of multiple media channels serve a very significant purpose, which is, ensuring that all the necessary media resources are assembled from the various points so as to carry out the anti-cannabis use campaign. The campaign also relies on records on cannabis use obtained from the government of Western for its planning and analysis. In this way, Drug Awares framework reflects the principles of best practice, which include involvement of the local government, knowledge transfer, planning, and evaluation that relies on statistics from the government of Western Australia.

Drug Aware: Ottawa Charter

Drug Aware has exhibited a high degree of compliance with the Ottawa Charter as far as the fight against abuse of cannabis is concerned. The Ottawa Charter ideas manifest themselves in the Drug Aware campaign in the following ways:

1. The Drug Aware initiative relies on statistics from the government of Western Australia to come up with ways of dealing with cannabis use, which is a widespread problem in Australia. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the percentage of cannabis users in 2004 in Australia was three times the proportion of cannabis users globally (3.8% and 11.3% respectively). This calls for a concerted effort from all sectors. However, the Drug Aware campaigns only involved the government of Western Australia in planning and evaluation of the initiative.
2. Through dissemination of information and the identification and referral of cannabis users, Drug Aware is creating awareness and recognition that cannabis use is a widespread problem (Drug Aware, 2011). In addition, by undertaking the campaign itself through the new media, Drug Aware ensures the message reaches the at-risk age groups with access to new media platforms.
3. The initiative was solely implemented by Drug Aware based on statistics from the government of Western Australia. The campaigns primarily increase awareness about cannabis use, its consequences and the laws relating to cannabis use. By relying on governments statistics, the most affected areas are easily identified, planning carried out to ensure that information reaches the target population. The Ottawa Charter talks about the need for evidence-based health promotion, and Drug Aware meets this milestone in an exceptional manner.
4. Drug aware also uses the help centers to teach the cannabis abusers personal skills. This is a very significant capacity building initiative proposed by the Ottawa Charter. The personal skills taught to cannabis abusers include the manner in which they ought to deal with withdrawal syndromes when they withdrawal from cannabis, how to seek for help when their health deteriorates, and learning how to fight against relapse after withdrawal. This reflects the principles highlighted in the Ottawa charter.

Drug Aware: Objectives

The objectives of Drug Aware campaign are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. The specificity points to the manner in which the Drug Aware objectives are designed to help handle a certain issue in the abuse of cannabis. Measurability is about gauging the number of people who stop using cannabis or reduce their usage of the drug. Attainable and realistic show how the stakeholders of the Drug Aware campaign have not deluded themselves into thinking that they can eliminate cannabis use in Western Australia in a day or two. Timely objectives mean that within a certain period, a certain number of people abandon cannabis use. The objectives of the Drug Aware initiative are not measurable. They include:

1. To lower the prevalence rate of cannabis use through the supply of information on its dangers to discourage new users and encourage regular users to stop the practice
2. Delay the age at which those who wish to use cannabis eventually get to use it as a way of avoiding youthful problems associated with cannabis abuse
3. To increase the number of people in Western Australia who are willing to quit the habit of using cannabis.
4. To encourage people who are suffering from the side effects of cannabis abuse to seek help from the available help centers
5. To sensitize Western Australians on the laws governing the possession and usage of cannabis

When gauged against best practice principles in health promotion, the objectives come out as sound and on point.

Drug Aware: Planning and Needs Assessment

Planning is a crucial step in any undertaking. This is also true for what Drug Aware is doing. Together with the planning, is the research to find out what the area under consideration requires? An educational and ecological approach in the formulating and disseminating of the messages is the planning framework that Drug Aware utilizes (Slama et al., 2007, p. 151). This framework is appropriate for the task that Drug Aware campaign is meant to accomplish. Given the significance of planning, it is mandatory that it be carried out in a collaborative manner by involving all stakeholders (Green & Kreuter, 2005, pp. 3-5). In planning the campaign, the collaboration between WANADA and the Drug and Alcohol Office brought together the professional work, communication experts and the local administrators. Although this reflects the Ottawa charter concepts, important stakeholders such as the youth and the parents were left out. This reflected the Ottawa charter core concepts; it led to the sharing of responsibility of health promotions among various sectors. However, a multi-sectoral approach can derail the implementation and evaluation of the initiative. Keleher (2007) also emphasizes the consideration of social determinants in planning for health promotion. Drug Aware only focused on the popularity of the new media among the youth in disseminating information. Thus, in Drug Aware campaigns, the information that is available for use in the campaigns employs popular online media used by the youth. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are integrated in Drug Aware website the dissemination of information.

Additionally, other segments of the population are reached through traditional communication channels such as the radio. For instance, the radio reaches the older people while posters placed in public places and public events reach all age groups.

Drug Aware: Evaluation

Nutbean (1998, pp. 27-29) stresses the importance of evaluating what has been done in health promotion. This evaluation is important for purposes of measuring effectiveness (Roffman & Stephens, 2006). In the case of cannabis, Emmett & Nice (2009) as well as Solowij (1998) assert that evaluation of progress for those trying to withdraw is important to enable the people trying to help them know how to use their time and other resources properly.

The Drug Aware initiative relies on the records obtained from the government of Western Australia regarding drug use and crime. Given that the decrease in drug use can be attributed to a number of reasons, any decrease in drug use cannot be attributed to Drug Aware campaigns alone. According to Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey, the percentage of students reporting cannabis use decreased by half (36% to 18%) between 1997 and 2005 following anti-drug campaigns (White, & Hayman, 2006, p. 34).

In any social undertaking, evaluation is based on the objectives. Health promotion initiatives evaluation relies on evidence from surveys and the consistency of the research findings to determine the success of the initiative. Drug Awares evaluation focuses on whether cannabis abuse is being eliminated, and if so, at what pace. This is determined by the measuring part of the objectives. In other words, evaluation takes into account the numbers of people pledging not to touch cannabis and having avoided it before, the number of those abandoning it, and the number of those reducing its use. In addition, the number of people reporting to help centers seeking help for addictions is part of the evaluation process. At the end of the day, investment in this campaign will only be meaningful if the evaluation process shows that the project is accomplishing its mission. All the tools of evaluation seem to be available for Drug Aware to gauge its performance. The evaluation results indicate that cannabis use is declining among the youth over the last five years, i.e. 18% in 2005 to 11% in 2010 (Drug Aware, 2011).

Fruitful Health Promotion Programs

Drug Aware has mounted a successful health promotion effort when viewed through the prism of best practice principles in health promotion. These include community involvement, evidence-based planning and evaluation, knowledge transfer and multi-disciplinary approach (involving all stakeholders). The multi-disciplinary approach was particularly important in:

• Message formulation where messages are accompanied by illustrations and diagrams to capture the attention of the public
• The dissemination of information through the internet and the radio (Nutbeam, 1998, p. 25)

Conclusion

The Drug Aware initiative employed in campaigning against the abuse of cannabis in Western Australia turns out well when examine under the best practices in health promotion. Proper planning, good evaluation, excellent objectives, consideration of socio-ecological factors and network creation in their efforts are all done well, meaning that getting to stop people from using cannabis is possible.

Reference List

AAP (2008). WA Liberals vow to crack down on cannabis. Perth Now. Web.

Botvin, G. & Griffin, K. (2002). Drug abuse prevention curricula in schools. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum.

De Leeuw, E. (2007). Policies for health: The effectiveness of their development, Adoption and implementation. In D. McQueen and C. Jones (Eds.), Global Perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 5166). New York: Springer Publishing.

Drug Aware (2011). Know what you are getting into. Web.

Emmett, D. & Nice, G. (2009). What you need to know about cannabis: Understanding the facts. New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Green, L. & Kreuter, M. (2005). A framework for planning. Chapter 1 in Health Program planning: An educational and ecological approach (pp 1-28). (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Haynes, R., Griffiths, P., Butler, T., Allsop, S. & Gunnell, A. (2010). Drug trends And crime tracking: Relationships between indices of heroin, amphetamine And cannabis use and crime. Western Australia Government: Drug and Alcohol Office Monograph: Number 6.

Henquet, C.; Krabbendam, L.; Spauwen, J.; Kaplan, C.; Lieb, R.; Wittchen, H. -U.; Van Os, J. (2005). Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition For psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. British Journal of Medicine 330 (7481), 11.

IUHPE. (2000). The evidence of health promotion effectiveness: Shaping public Health in a new Europe (2nd Ed.). Part One, Core Document. France: IUHPE.

Kelleher, H. (2007). Health promotion planning and the social determinants of Health. Chapter 8 H. Kelleher, C. MacDougal and B. Murphy (Eds.), Understanding health promotion (pp. 114-133). Melbourne: Oxford Press.

McKim, William A (2002). Drugs and Behaviour: An Introduction to Behavioural Pharmacology (5th Edition). New York: Prentice Hall.

McLaren, J., Lemon, J., Robins, L.,& Mattick, R.(February 2008). Cannabis and Mental Health: Put into Context. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. Australia: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

McQueen, D. (2001). Strengthening the evidence base for health promotion. Health Promotion International, 16(3), 261-268.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1997). Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Cannabis: Know the risks! Sydney: NSW Government.

Nutbeam, D. (1998). Evaluating health promotion  progress, problems and solutions. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 27-44.

Roffman, R. & Robert, S. (2006). Cannabis dependence: its nature, consequences, And treatment. Cambridge: University Press.

Slama, K., Callard, C., Saloojee, Y. & Rithiphakdee, B. (2007). Effective health Promotion against tobacco use. Chapter 10 in D. McQueen and C. Jones (Eds.), Global perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 151161). New York: Springer Publishing.

Solowij, N. (1998). Cannabis and cognitive functioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006). Why we should care. New York: United Nations.

White, V. & Hayman, J. (2006). Australian secondary school students use of over-counter and illicit substances in 2005. Melbourne: Cancer Council of Victoria.

Cannabis belongs to a genus known as Cannabis from a family of flowering plants, Cannabaecae. Cannabis has had medicinal purposes following its application in cancer treatment, epilepsy, appetite loss, among other terminal ailments. Cannabis growth requires specific conditions, beginning from the soil, which should have sufficient nutrients for its growth and a pH range of 5.8 to 6.5 (Hurgobin et al., 2021). The temperatures should range between 24⁰ C to 30⁰ C; if it exceeds 31⁰ C, Cannabis wilt.

The plant should remain under either artificial or natural light for 16-24 hours (Hurgobin et al., 2021). Cannabis should be watered regularly and in consideration of light. The ideal humidity for optimal growth should be between 40-60% RH (Hurgobin et al., 2021). Only a few places can have all of the above conditions conducive to the growth of Cannabis. Thus, technological intervention ensures that the conditions are not relying on nature. Over the years, different innovation has been made to facilitate the growth of Cannabis. This study seeks to explore various technological applications in cannabis cultivation.

Technological advancement plays a crucial role in ensuring that the growth of Cannabis is not affected by natural environment. The physical environment keeps changing depending on factors such as weather changes, humidity, and temperature. Fluctuating conditions limit the production of Cannabis. The demand for Cannabis has grown in the most developed countries due to legalization of the cultivation and processing of Cannabis. Setting and tracking of each plant in the field, data analytics about Cannabis are achieved through technology

The technological innovation examines state of the art in cannabis cultivation technology. The technology is used in the modern-day for tracking every plant and proposing new solutions. The methods have already been implemented to tackle the challenges in cannabis cultivation. The technological solutions help in creating efficiencies of growing Cannabis. Using an examining technology maximizes the production of Cannabis. Several methods of advanced technology in cannabis growing have been applied. In most places, especially in developed countries, different technological approaches have been involved in growing Cannabis. Such methods include using greenhouses, indoor grow technology and application of vertical farm technology.

The Greenhouse Technology

The use of greenhouse provides a sustainable output of Cannabis, and this is applied in the US and Canada, where greenhouses occupy up to 40-acres of land. The greenhouse helps to control the physical environment of the plants; it has mitigated the smell of Cannabis growing, according to the ordinance of the area. Greenhouse technology ensures that sunlight will not burn the plants due to changing intensity (Hurgobin et al., 2021). Greenhouses are fitted with retractable energy saving, which offers a shade curtain, a heat regulator inside the greenhouse. Again, the greenhouse uses biomass to power the heating units, and the installation of hot water radiant floors ensures the area zone of heating has been controlled, thus helping in the continuous production of cannabis.

The Indoor Grow Technology

The use of indoor growing technology has helped in fostering cannabis production. After Cannabis has been legalized in Colorado, adults have been using Cannabis since the year 2014 (Hurgobin et al., 2021). The enormous consumption of Cannabis around Colorado has resulted in a warehouse in places like Denver. Most of the cities in Colorado were required to grow Cannabis. Growers who practiced outdoor growth and small indoor growth became brilliant building designers, thus evolving the indoor concept. Indoor cannabis cultivation has four significant issues that are required to handle; pest mitigation, HVAC, lighting, and contamination (Hurgobin et al., 2021). A few challenges in indoor grow technology have led to the production of substantial Cannabis that can sustain the consumption rate in Colorado.

Use of Application in Rescuing Plants

The use of seed-to-sale tracking is required in controlling the compliance of the Cannabis growth. Technology ensures that every seed for planting can be traced to avoid potential diversion from the black market. The software has been developed to ensure that they automate Cannabis for data entry compliance to the seed-to-sale platform for seed track. GeoShepard project uses an offline mode, where users can use their phones out in the field without Wi-Fi access. Research has been conducted to come up with more analytic software. The software has been built to help the growers to understand the statistics of the business. The software helps in calculating, estimating the production quantity and CSI for Cannabis. The seed-to-sale application has made work easier for both the farmers and the entire cannabis industry.

The Use of a Vertical Farm

Vertical farming is the newest technological innovation in cannabis farming. The method involves growing the plants vertically. The plants are so tiny to grow in a non-traditional farm location. The vertical farm is a plant wall inside a tight gas envelope, eliminating contamination and pest issues as plants face each other. The configuration of this method allows for a dense canopy and the use of a LED light to mimicking morning, noon, and evening light, and they are software controlled.

The sites in Quebec are in rooms that are 25 feet in height (Hurgobin et al., 2021). However, Growex is planning to go higher than that by eliminating interaction based on the human arm by replacing them with a robotic arm to pick up row plants and then bring the raw down for a particular person to work. The use of vertical farming has made cannabis farming easier to control diseases and pests.

In conclusion, cannabis technological advancement has made a significant milestone in ensuring that the production of Cannabis has been effective and efficient. Population growth has created the demand for cannabis production increase. The natural methods of growing Cannabis could not bring the necessary output to cope up with the growing demand. Opting for technological measures to grow Cannabis will be the best measure. Technological methods for producing Cannabis include greenhouses, indoor farming, and the use of a vertical farm.

Reference

Hurgobin, B., TamiruOli, M., Welling, M. T., Doblin, M. S., Bacic, A., Whelan, J., & Lewsey, M. G. (2021). Recent advances in Cannabis sativa genomics research. New Phytologist, 230(1), 73-89.

Abstract

The release of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act gave a start to the new phase of debate around marijuana legalization in New Jersey. The bill provides exact figures concerning taxation and highlights the legal requirements for the cities of the state to host the marijuana industry. While many New Jerseans, same as the residents of Michigan and Montana, demonstrate their utmost excitement about the upcoming changes in legislation, neighboring states do not share their enthusiasm.

The bill adoption is accompanied by a range of complexities: the act seems to affect racial minorities and create difficulties with clearing criminal records of minor offenders. Nevertheless, many believe that marijuana legalization will have a positive effect on the medical sector and will bring billions of dollars to the budget.

Introduction

The debate around the need to legalize marijuana in New Jersey has been held for several years. Because the illegal market has substantially strengthened its position in the state, the idea of legalizing cannabis has gained more supporters these days (Fairman, 2016).

Democratic leaders of the state are convinced that removing restrictions on using recreational marijuana will help to increase public safety, save funds, improve racial justice, and optimize the existing judicial system. If the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act is approved, the problem of inequality of the current drug policies will be finally resolved (Livio, 2018, para. 2). Knowing that smoking cannabis is no longer illegal would allow the local government to shift resources to the spheres that require them most.

The New Regulatory Act: Facts, Revenues, and Key Principles

The months of private negotiations between the democratic leaders of New Jersey finally resulted in the release of a blueprint underlining the key details concerning marijuana legalization. On November 21, 2018 New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act was introduced to a wide audience (Livio, 2018, para. 2). The bill legally permits the use of one ounce of the substance by everyone aged 21.

The act contains strict directives regarding taxation: a 12% tax will be imposed on organizations producing and supplying marijuana, while an extra 2% tax will be raised for cities hosting this business (Livio, 2018, para. 3). In the meantime, it provides details regarding the expungement process for individuals who were previously arrested for carrying or distributing one once of the weed or less.

Clearing the criminal records of individuals with minor offenses is not, however, the only aspect this act touches upon. The amended bill text (S2703 version, which still waits to be adopted) states that the cities must have a population of at least 120,000 people to host marijuana manufacturers (Corasaniti, 2018). Also, it presupposes the division of living areas into consumption and non-consumption zones; smoking in undesignated zones will lead to punishment by fine. About the mentioned requirements, only Elizabeth, Paterson, Newark, and Jersey City are eligible to give a start to the industry development. A peculiar fact about the bill is that it replaces the term marijuana with a more neutral cannabis emphasizing the products legality.

The governmental structures have calculated that the sales of cannabis would result in substantial benefits for the state. According to a recent survey, more than 4% of the local population uses cannabis on an ongoing basis (McKoy & Rosmarin, 2016). In a legalized system, the revenues from marijuana sales could exceed $1.2 billion on an annual scale (McKoy & Rosmarin, 2016). Experts, however, provide rough figures since one cannot predict the actual situation following the bill adoption. The transition from an illegal to legal market requires time; one would need to introduce an effective price regulatory model for people to cease buying from dealers and start purchasing legally.

Legalization of Marijuana: Situation in the Other States

A close study of the issue in the neighboring states (Pennsylvania and New York) has shown that a relatively small number of residents support New Jerseys program. McKoy and Rosmarin (2016) approximate that no more than 10% of cannabis consumers express the will to join New Jerseyans in marijuana legalization.

In the meantime, Michigan and Montana demonstrate a relatively higher interest in the program implementation. A notable fact about these states is that they have the highest number of female supporters compared to other US regions. According to the survey results provided by Fairman (2016), two-thirds of participants are male, but sex differences may be decreasing over time (p. 72). This occurrence can be related to the fact that the legalization of medical marijuana has been sharply discussed there since 2009, and New Jerseys situation laid the foundation for the new phase of the debate.

To analyze the outcomes of legalization, one should redirect attention towards Colorado and Massachusetts, the states that experienced its beneficial impact. As Axelrod (2019) admits, legalized marijuana in the given states resulted in higher revenues from taxes and formed a favorable environment for a small business to emerge. The new industry has allowed the companies in Massachusetts to create an average of 19,000 workplaces, and nearly the same amount (18,000) in Colorado (Axelrod, 2019). About this fact, the District of Columbia and ten other states have already permitted to use of recreational cannabis. In addition, 23 states have adopted laws legalizing medical marijuana. Legalizing cannabis in New Jersey was only a matter of time.

Cons

As was mentioned earlier, making marijuana legal involves clearing criminal records of many individuals with minor offenses. Corasaniti (2018) stresses out that marijuana laws in the state have affected minorities. According to recent studies, African-American residents of New Jersey demonstrate a three-time higher probability to be arrested on drug offenses compared to the representatives of other races (Corasaniti, 2018).

There are opinions that legislators have developed a biased attitude towards racial minorities due to this fact, which tends to influence their decisions regarding the crime expungement. Activists openly express their concerns about this matter and join public meetings to be heard by the government (Corasaniti, 2018). The difficulty of tossing out the previous convictions has injected uncertainty into the minds of citizens and some of the lawmakers. Many people question the laws practicability as they no longer believe in the fairness of a judicial system (Corasaniti, 2018).

Another complication is attributed to the fact that the legalization of cannabis does not relieve police officers of the need to control the situation around the drug. An officer must still be capable of recognizing whether a driver is impaired by marijuana or not.

Also, strict control over smokers requires one to constantly monitor non-smoking areas and punish the offenders. Considering this matter, a rearranged training program should be introduced for the police to maximize its efficiency in fighting future violations (Fairman, 2016). Also, the reform of both medical and pharmacy systems must be launched to guide clinicians in the matters of drug prescription (Fairman, 2016). One should know the symptoms, dosage, and possible side effects when addressing a cannabis treatment.

Pros

Marijuana legalization would be the source of a new income, which could be directed to fixing roads, creating parking zones, building recreational community centers, and so on. Analytics advise increasing taxes for the states that host marijuana businesses, such as Washington and Colorado, to raise millions of dollars in annual revenues (Axelrod, 2019). Marijuana legalization advocates trust in more efficient law enforcement and the criminal justice system, since police officers, judges, and prosecutors will have more time to focus on more severe criminal cases (Axelrod, 2019). In its turn, it will lead to a reduction in the inmate population of state prisons. It is also considered that marijuana legalization will rectify a profit surge for illegal drug dealers.

Advocates argue that with the legalization of marijuana, the industry would have a safer manufacturing system capable of tracking the quality of products supplied to consumers. They also believe that legalizing medical cannabis would benefit patients suffering from terminal or chronic illnesses (Sachs, McGlade, & Yurgelun-Todd, 2015). Medical workers support this claim stating that marijuana assists with the treatment of such disorders as epilepsy, AIDS, anorexia, cancer, migraine, glaucoma, post-traumatic conditions, and more (Sachs et al., 2015). The American Academy of Neurology expressed their expert opinion too: medical cannabis is probably effective for some symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), including spasticity, central pain, spasms, and urinary dysfunction (Sachs et al., 2015, p.735).

Conclusion

The legalization of cannabis in New Jersey has been accompanied by intense debate regarding the laws applicability not only within the state, but in Montana, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan as well. The example of Colorado and Massachusetts shows that legalizing marijuana may have an overall positive impact on the states economy creating a favorable environment for the industry growth. While there are some complications related to the law implementation (minority protests, the need for medical reform), the changes promise to reduce crime and improve the lives of regular citizens.

References

Axelrod, T. (2019). New Jersey governor renews call for legalizing marijuana. Web.

Corasaniti, N. (2018). How a push to legalize pot in N.J. became a debate on race and fairness. The New York Times. Web.

Fairman, B. J. (2016). Trends in registered medical marijuana participation across 13 US states and District of Columbia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 159, 72-79.

Livio, S. K. (2018). Heres how N.J is likely to legalize marijuana under new bill just unveiled by top democrats. Web.

McKoy, B., & Rosmarin, A. (2016). Marijuana legalization & taxation: Positive revenue implications for New Jersey. New Jersey Policy Perspective & American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, 1-14.

Sachs, J., McGlade, E., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2015). Safety and toxicology of cannabinoids. Neurotherapeutics, 12(4), 735-746.

Introduction

Cannabis, also known as marijuana, is one of the most commonly misused drugs in western cultures for recreational purposes. The drug was reported to have approximately 192 million users as of 2018 worldwide (Gabri et al., 2022). In Europe alone, almost 90 million people ranging between 15-64 years reported to have taken marijuana at least once in their lifetime, and about 1 in every 10 young adults used the drug monthly in 2019 (Gabri et al., 2022). Additionally, the United States recorded 3.43 million users in 2020 (Conway, 2022). The inappropriate use and sake of cannabis may contain significant public health as well as social consequences. When compared with non-user individuals, monthly consumption of the drug is assumed to lead to an increased risk of injuries, psychosis, and poor obstetric outcomes. Furthermore, cannabis is addictive and causes cognitive impairment and short-term memory (Yu et al., 2020). Moreover, cannabis misuse is directly linked with reduced motivation and poor academic performance. As much as the use of cannabis is associated with adverse effects, its health effects, such as pain reduction, remain beneficial.

Mechanism of Action

The mechanism of action of marijuana in the human body remains unclear. Marijuana is the only plant that comprises Cannabinoids which contain similar properties to the endocannabinoids found in the human body. The drug contains over 400 compounds of the terpenoid and flavonoid types and its chemical elements known as cannabinoids, with more than 60 being pharmacologically active (Rabipour et al., 2022). All the cannabinoids are capable of activating endogenous receptors of the CB1 and CB2 type in the endocannabinoid system. CB1 and CB2 then trigger specific signaling systems that initiate various actions by directly obstructing the release of several neurotransmitters, including dopamine, acetylcholine, and glutamate (Rabipour et al., 2022). The endocannabinoid system is a dense network of organs all over the body that express the receptors and take homeostatic functions (Anand et al., 2021). CB1 receptors are primarily located in the hippocampus, spinal cord, basal ganglia, peripheral nerves, association cortex, and cerebellum, whereas the CB2 receptors are situated in the immune systems cells. The roles of the endocannabinoid system include memory, appetite, pain, immunity, movement, cardiopulmonary function, salivation or lacrimation, and metabolism.

The majority of the effects of cannabinoids, like psychotropics, result from CB1 activation, with CB2 taking significant roles in inflammatory and immune functions. Internally, endocannabinoids act as modulators of neuro-regulation, which are responsible for reverse neurotransmission (Anand et al., 2021). A post-synaptic neuron at this point excretes endocannabinoids that combine mainly with CB1 receptors on the presynaptic nerve cell. The joining with the CB1 receptors then leads to inhibited activation of the presynaptic calcium channel and the release of subsequent presynaptic neurotransmitters. Suppose the presynaptic neurotransmitters are primarily inhibitory, like Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the net outcome will be excitatory. Moreover, binding to distinct parts of the central nervous system (CNS) mediates diverse cannabinoids psychotropic traits, specifically THC. The affected areas and their effects include impairment of short-term memory in the hippocampus, altered movement and reaction time in basal ganglia, and euphoria in the nucleus accumbens (Anand et al., 2021). Additionally, there is impaired sensation and judgment in the neocortex, increased appetite in the hypothalamus, ataxia in the cerebellum, analgesia in the spinal cord, and paranoia and panic in the amygdala.

Cannabidiol (CBD) which contains antipsychotic and anxiolytic effects, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the primary psychoactive marijuana component, are the most studied cannabinoids. The main source of THC is the resin of stems or leaves, and it is highly fat soluble. Additionally, THC is quickly absorbed in the intestinal and respiratory systems with a bioavailability of 6% when consumed orally and between 15-20% when smoked (Rabipour et al., 2022). The therapeutic effects of cannabis are reliant on THC concentration as well as the cannabidiol to THC ratio following the ability of cannabidiol to moderate THC psychoactive effects. The 1:1 ratio has been reported to produce the best clinical advantages with less adverse effects (Rabipour et al., 2022). Moreover, the channel of administration is significant as it establishes the absorption process, pharmacology as well as the metabolism of various cannabinoids. The cannabinoids therapeutic properties include neuroprotective, antioxidant, antiviral, bone stimulant, antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, and vasorelaxant.

Medical Treatment

Pain Management

Marijuana can be used as an effective remedy for pain reduction. Cannabinoids extracted from cannabis have been investigated for their analgesic benefits in pain management, such as cancer-associated pain, particularly neuropathic pain (Daris et al., 2019). In support of this, Donk et al. (2018) found that more patients showed pain reduction by 30% with high doses of CBD and THC. CB1 receptors in the central nervous system exist in concentrated amounts in brain areas that mediate nociceptive processing with the same distribution as opioid receptors (Anand et al., 2021). Additionally, cannabinoids may act on mast cell receptors which promote the release of analgesic opioids to curb inflammation and hinder the emission of inflammatory substances, thereby reducing pain effects.

Moreover, cannabinoids inhibit the acute pain response fibers as well as the wind-up phenomenon, which are largely associated with hyperalgesia development hence helping with the treatment of neuropathic pain. Cannabinoids can be combined with opioids to produce analgesia using the G-protein coupled mechanism that inhibits the release of pain-generating neurotransmitters in the spinal cord as well as the brain (Anand et al., 2021). Furthermore, the analgesic effect of cannabinoids THC is moderated through kappa and delta opioid receptors depicting a close connection between opioid and cannabinoid signaling channels in the variation of pain perception.

Anxiety Disorders and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Anxiety disorders and PTSD are regarded as the most common mental diseases globally, accompanied by high financial and psychosocial burdens, especially in veterans. They are primarily treated with psychotherapy, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants containing selective norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitor as well as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor. However, even with these treatments, approximately 40% of patients continue to experience anxiety and PTSD symptoms which have then motivated medical experts to seek effective therapeutics. CBD has shown to be an alternative therapeutic treatment for anxiety and PTSD. Elms et al. (2019) found that an oral administration of CBD to regular psychiatric care led to reduced PTSD symptoms in 91% of adults in their study. In addition, their results indicated that CBD provided relief for patients that have frequent encounters with nightmares as a PTSD symptom. Moreover, Shannon et al. (2019) claimed that anxiety scores dropped in 79.2% of their participants, while 66.7% reported increased sleep scores within the first month of the research. Therefore, it is evident that CBD can be an effective treatment for PTSD and anxiety.

Increasing the consumption of cannabinoids such as CBD helps the level of joy transmitter, that is, anandamide, increase, which helps eliminate undesirable encounters. Moreover, the resultant change in body chemicals aid in soothing an individuals muscles and nerves which allows relaxation, thus reducing the effects of anxiety. Anandamide acts as a neurotransmitter since they transmit chemical messages between neurons in the nervous system. CBD affects various parts of the brain, which influence memory, sensory perception, thinking, as well as coordination (Elms et al., 2019). THC contains this same feature which enables it to bind with receptors in the brain, stimulating several physical and mental features. Furthermore, recreational smoking of marijuana has been associated with short-term memory loss among individuals. Despite this, examination of the endocannabinoid system indicates that it helps accelerate the process of enabling people to forget painful experiences, including traumatic events.

Seizure

Cannabidiol can be used to prevent some forms of seizures in some individuals, such as ones suffering from epilepsy. Some epilepsy patients suffer from drug-resistant epilepsy. A drug-resistant epilepsy patient is one whose seizures are uncontrollable despite using the required dosage of not less than two antiepileptic medications. Drug-resistant epilepsy reduces the quality of life of individuals, increases cognitive problems, and leads to severe psychosocial consequences (Gray & Whalley, 2020). Endocannabinoids take part in reducing excitatory neurotransmitter release in the central nervous system, which aids in inhibiting seizure development. They work on cannabinoid receptors, with CB1 being expressed in peripheral and neural nerve cells and CB2 in brain cells as well as the immune cells. CBD interacts with the purinergic system to increase extracellular adenosine, which reduces seizure threshold generation. In support of this, Zafar et al. (2021) found an 86% decrease in seizure frequency in all of their 10 participants and reported reduced use of antiepileptic drugs following medical cannabis treatment. Moreover, seizures initiate the rapid production and release of adenosine and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), which can be provided by marijuana, hence reducing seizure frequency.

Loss of CB1 and CB2 receptors influences the regulation of neural activity, which can lead to severe and spontaneous forms of seizures. For this reason, formulating and creating drugs containing cannabinoid receptors can be used as a therapeutic way to help reduce the development of seizure disorders (Gray & Whalley, 2020). Since CBD has more antiepileptic features than THC, drugs containing more CBD are most effective in seizure reduction. Moreover, CBD contains fewer adverse effects due to its weak activity at CB1 and CB2 receptors working as an effective remedy for seizure with less adverse effects (Zafar et al., 2021). Furthermore, CBD operates under other mediums, such as transient receptor potential (TRP) channels leading to a reduction in the glutamate presynaptic release, thereby lowering seizure incidences.

Nausea

Nausea is a common symptom of various illnesses but is considered challenging to treat using conventional treatments. It is caused by various problems such as chemotherapy, gastrointestinal disorders, emotional distress, and food poisoning. Cannabis has been widely used to curb nausea, and its effectiveness has been recorded mostly in cancer chemotherapy. Marijuana contains high concentrations of THC compound, which affects the dorsal vagus nerve and is responsible for moderating vomiting and nausea (Mersiades et al., 2018). The drug has the ability to induce responses of the CB1 receptor to other stimuli like the insular cortex in the CNS. In addition, CBD promotes CB1 expression in the hypothalamus, which is responsible for appetite and helps relax the digestive tract, which helps reduce nausea incidences. CBD enhances the synthesis of particular hormones, such as ghrelin which induces appetite or the drive to eat.

Moreover, CBD promotes the production of serotonin and dopamine, otherwise known as mood hormones which can be beneficial for individuals lacking appetite in stressful situations. Dopamine initiates a hunger feeling which then promotes appetite (Mersiades et al., 2018). On the other hand, serotonin aids in moderating digestive-related processes such as appetite and bowel movements. Additionally, CBD can directly bind with CB2 receptors found in the peripheral tissues, like in the gastrointestinal system, which then helps in the synthesis of stomach acid and saliva. Thus, CBD can be helpful in promoting hunger and effective digestion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cannabis can be used for medical purposes despite having severe effects. The mechanism of action of cannabis continues to be unclear, even with diverse research. Marijuana contains cannabinoids with similar properties to endocannabinoids found in the human body. Cannabinoids activate CB1 and CB2 receptors which trigger specific signaling systems that initiate various actions by directly obstructing the release of several neurotransmitters. Most cannabinoid effects, such as psychotropics, result from CB1 activation, with CB2 taking significant roles in inflammatory and immune functions. Cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are the most studied components of cannabinoids.

Cannabis can be used in pain management, particularly in cancer patients. Cannabinoids may act on mast cell receptors which promote the release of analgesic opioids, thus helping in pain reduction. Moreover, cannabinoids inhibit the acute pain response fibers as well as the wind-up phenomenon, which largely contributes to neuropathic pain reduction. Additionally, marijuana is highly effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. Increasing the consumption of cannabinoids helps the level of joy transmitters which helps eliminate traumatic experiences. Cannabinoids are able to influence an individuals thinking, coordination, memory, and sensory perception allowing THC to attach itself to neurons and influence outcomes. Cannabidiol can be used to prevent some forms of seizures. Endocannabinoids take part in reducing the release of excitatory neurotransmitters in the (CNS), inhibiting seizure development. Furthermore, cannabis contains high concentrations of THC compound, which affects the dorsal vagus nerve and is responsible for moderating vomiting and nausea. CBD promotes the production of ghrelin, serotonin, and dopamine beneficial for individuals lacking appetite.

References

Anand, U., Pacchetti, B., Anand, P., & Sodergren, M. (2021). Cannabis-based medicines and pain: A review of potential synergistic and entourage effects.Pain Management, 11(4), 395403. Web.

Conway, J. (2022). Number of adult-use cannabis users in the United States from 2020 to 2025. Statista. Web.

Daris, B., Verboten, M., Knez, }., & Ferk, P. (2019). Cannabinoids in cancer treatment: Therapeutic potential and legislation. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 19(1), 1423. Web.

Donk, T., Niesters, M., Kowal, M. A., Olofsen, E., Dahan, A., & Velzen, M. (2018). An experimental randomized study on the analgesic effects of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis in chronic pain patients with fibromyalgia. Pain, 160(4), 860869. Web.

Elms, L., Shannon, S., Hughes, S., & Lewis, N. (2019). Cannabidiol in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder: A case series. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 25(4), 392397. Web.

Gabri, A., Galanti, M., Orsini, N., & Magnusson, C. (2022). Changes in cannabis policy and prevalence of recreational cannabis use among adolescents and young adults in Europe-an interrupted time-series analysis. PLOS ONE, 17(1), 110. Web.

Gray, R., & Whalley, B. (2020). The proposed mechanisms of action of CBD in epilepsy.Epileptic Disordorders, 22(1), 1015. Web.

Mersiades, A., Tognela, A., Haber, P., Stockler, M., Lintzeris, N., Simes, J., McGregor, I., Olver, I., Allsop, D., Gedye, C., Kirby, A., Morton, R., Fox, P., Clarke, S., Briscoe, K., Aghmesheh, M., Wong, N., Walsh, A., Hahn, C., & Grimison, P. (2018). Oral cannabinoid-rich THC/CBD cannabis extract for secondary prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A study protocol for a pilot and definitive randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (CannabisCINV). BMJ Open, 8(9), 18. Web.

Rabipour , S., Mahmood, E., & Afsharkhas, M. (2022). Medicinal use of marijuana and its impacts on respiratory system. Journal of Chemistry Letters, 3(2), 8694. Web.

Shannon, S., Lewis, N., Lee, H., & Hughes, S. (2019). Cannabidiol in anxiety and sleep: A large case series. The Permanente Journal, 23(1), 15. Web.

Yu, B., Chen, X., Chen, X., & Yan, H. (2020). Marijuana legalization and historical trends in marijuana use among US residents aged 1225: Results from the 19792016 national survey on drug use and health.BMC Public Health, 20(1), 110. Web.

Zafar, R., Schlag, A., Phillips, L., & Nutt, D. (2021). Medical cannabis for severe treatment resistant epilepsy in children: A case-series of 10 patients. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 5(1), 1015. Web.

Nowadays, many individuals, whether current users or former users of drug substances, are susceptible to the stigma that disrupt their lives and emotional state. According to Reid (2020, p.1), stigma is a “socially devalued” aspect of oneself that has become morally repugnant. A physiological imperfection, behavioral flaws, or involvement in a deplorable organization can all be examples of this characteristic. In either case, the unwelcome difference negatively separates the person from other members of society. Medical use of cannabis and legalization of the drug assist in lessening marijuana stigmas. Still, legislation changes alone do not entirely change social attitudes, which makes the given issue especially vital. Thus, the aim of this paper is to analyze the common perceptions of marijuana users.

At the given time, the perceptions of marijuana use depend on factors such as expertise, social attractiveness, intellect, hygiene, religion, professional attitude, political stance, and average income, the dearth of which allow society to stigmatize an individual. For example, in the study conducted by Reid (2020), researchers found the prevailing stereotype that the common user of marijuana is a young adult that lacks qualifications and responsibility. Moreover, the researchers claimed that marijuana users could also be stigmatized due to their behavior, intelligence, and gender (Reid, 2020). For example, the “stoner stereotype” amplifies characteristics such as recklessness, carelessness, low intelligence, and inexperience (Reid, 2020, p.1). Moreover, according to the statistics, men were more likely to be labeled as marijuana users (Newhart & Dolphin, 2018). In addition, the book by Mincin (2018) corroborates the given statement by claiming that most former and current marijuana users are seen as individuals with poor mental abilities.

As for another common stigma, the study conducted by Reid also discovered that the perceptions of society depend on the annual income of the individual. For instance, people with high yearly incomes are rarely regarded as users, while individuals with low incomes are more prone to the stigma of drug addicts (Reid). Additionally, the research by Jain et al. (2014) aimed to discover whether young doctors, practitioners, and the general public thought it inappropriate for medical students to post photos of marijuana on social media. All participants indicated that such photographs obviously violated existing professional norms or legislation (Jain et al., 2014). Thus, such posts were seen as improper and provided the most distress, which led to perceiving such individuals as unprofessional.

Another research analyzed the stigma associated with those who are addicted to alcohol, cannabis, or opiates. The theoretical concept of desirable social distancing toward users was tested using path analysis (Janulis et al., 2013). When it comes to marijuana use, it was determined that such individuals were seen as less socially attractive and induced the desire to keep social distance (Janulis et al., 2013). Furthermore, as per the claims in the research conducted by Matthews, many users of marijuana are viewed as unhygienic individuals with unhealthy appearances.

However, society’s attitude tends to be different toward religious individuals and those who use medical cannabis. For example, in this case, patient story testimonies, such as people recounting their experiences about how medical cannabis helped reduce symptoms of their severe disorders, make up a significant percentage of Israeli press coverage of medical cannabis. In Canada and the United States, widespread analogous media stories (Sznitman & Lewis, 2018). The popularity of this approach is significant because user accounts, which provide a profoundly emotional viewpoint, have the potential to have a substantial influence on society (Sznitman & Lewis, 2018). According to the study by Sznitman & Lewis (2018), people’s attitude toward the use of marijuana varies depending on whether the individual is seriously ill. Lastly, in Burdette et al. (2018) study, researchers evaluate the relationship between religiousness and cannabis use for medicinal and recreational purposes. According to the data provided in the work, religious individuals had lower rates of medicinal and recreational cannabis use (Burdette et al., 2018). As a result, the stigma of drug use affects those who are not religious.

While the literature covers the common perceptions of marijuana users, including physical appearance, mental abilities, and professionalism, the studies lack an analysis of societal attitudes toward individuals with identical traits, except for the use of marijuana. In this respect, considering that individuals might not fit the profile of a substance user, the perceptions might shift when recognizing the factors of marijuana usage. Thus, this might imply that a biased attitude can be induced when learning the mentioned fact.

As a result, the research question focuses on what kind of perception of cannabis users society holds. In this case, the research design will involve a survey in which two photos of the same person and similar traits are introduced. The only difference between the cases is the usage of marijuana, which supposedly should navigate the respondents in rating the likeability, professionalism, and intelligence of the individual in the photo. The hypothesis of the research states that determining whether the stock photo depicts a marijuana user has an impact on people’s perceptions of certain personalized features of users.

References

Burdette, A. M., Webb, N. S., Hill, T. D., Haynes, S. H., & Ford, J. A. (2018). Religious involvement and marijuana use for medical and recreational purposes. Journal of Drug Issues, 48(3), 421-434.

Jain, A., Petty, E. M., Jaber, R. M., Tackett, S., Purkiss, J., Fitzgerald, J., & White, C. (2014). What is appropriate to post on social media? Ratings from students, faculty members and the public. Medical Education, 48(2), 157-169.

Janulis, P., Ferrari, J. R., & Fowler, P. (2013). Understanding public stigma toward substance dependence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1065-1072.

Mincin, J. (2018). Addiction and stigmas: overcoming labels, empowering people. In New directions in treatment, education, and outreach for mental health and addiction (pp. 125-131). Springer.

Newhart, M., & Dolphin, W. (2018). The medicalization of marijuana: Legitimacy, stigma, and the patient experience. Routledge.

Reid, M. (2020). A qualitative review of cannabis stigmas at the twilight of prohibition. Journal of Cannabis Research, 2(1), 1-12.

Sznitman, S. R., & Lewis, N. (2018). Examining effects of medical cannabis narratives on beliefs, attitudes, and intentions related to recreational cannabis: A web-based randomized experiment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 185, 219-225.

Introduction

Drug Aware is a campaign run in Western Australia to combat cannabis abuse. Stakeholders treat the consequences cannabis abuse seriously, and therefore prioritize action to discourage people from the drug. The paper will examine Drug Aware in terms of conceptual framework, planning and evaluation structures that are in place, the compliance it exhibits with regard to conventional health promotional initiatives. These include the Ottawa Charter, and the extent to which the campaign’s objectives are representative of what is needed to solve the problem at hand, which is, preventing those who have not began using cannabis from doing so, enabling those who are using abandon it or reduce, and encourage those with problems because of its use to seek help. The paper will present these aspects of the Drug Aware campaign in Western Australia in relation to health promotion principles. It will also shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the campaign, taking a step further to make suggestions for improvement. A conclusion summing up the issues covered in this appraisal will follow.

Drug Aware: An Overview

Drug Aware is a collaborative effort between the Government of Western Australia and the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies (WANADA). Through message generation and dissemination, Drug Aware reaches out to people whose age range lies between 12 years and 29 years. At the end of the day, everyone in Western Australia regardless of age is a target of this campaign that is geared towards substance abuse. The Drug Aware achieves this by increasing knowledge about health risks of cannabis use among the at-risk age groups. There are media channels used by Drug Aware campaigners. Nearly all of them utilize message dissemination and they are as follows:

1. Using online message transmission methods such as Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, and other websites such as the Drug Aware campaign that has information pertaining to the Drug Aware initiative (Drug Aware, 2011)
2. Youth festivals
3. Outdoor advertising and cinema advertising
4. Radio and television outreach

Besides dissemination of anti-cannabis use messages to create awareness, the Drug Aware campaign involves other cannabis-use prevention strategies. It provides information on treatment options available to cannabis users hooked to the habit. This approach is particularly important in rehabilitating cannabis users who are prone to cannabis dependence. The Drug Aware campaigns messages discourage the advertising of alcohol or tobacco near schools or learning institutions.

The involvement of many media channels Drug Aware helps support its campaign against cannabis use, and this is essential for health promotion (McQueen 2001, 261-262). In particular, the dissemination strategy helps people to become aware of the health risks of substance abuse and refrain from cannabis use (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003). Thus, the use of multiple media platforms by Drug Aware campaigns is primarily to increase its outreach. In effect, the Drug Aware campaigns will inform the community of the risks associated with cannabis use.

Cannabis Abuse

Cannabis abuse is a serious problem in Western Australia. According to the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Western Australia government, there is a direct relationship between cannabis abuse and crime (Haynes et al., 2010, p. 14). The Drug and Alcohol Office further notes that abuse of cannabis closely associated with harm to individuals, including disability and death (2010, p.14). As an indicator of how serious the cannabis issue is in Western Australia, politicians have joined the discussion with liberals promising tougher laws regarding cannabis. These politicians describe current laws as soft, and claim that they send the wrong message to young people (AAP, Perth Now, August 2008). In the liberals view, cannabis is neither soft nor harmless, a view that is shared by the other stakeholders who are working with the government of Western Australia to eliminate cannabis.

Best Practices in Controlling Cannabis: A Literature Review

Cannabis abuse poses serious health problems to users. Psychosis is one of the risks that users run into (Henquet et al., 2005, p. 11). This assertion is also made by Williams McKim (2002, p. 400) and McLaren et al., (2008, p.12). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s report entitled “Why we should care” deals with sensitization and strict laws as one of the effective strategies in cannabis use prevention (Roffman, & Robert, 2006, p. 14). Additionally, in Australia, the National School Drug Education Strategy promotes a number of school-based educational programs for cannabis use prevention. These include affective education, sensitization/information dissemination, and skills on social resistance (Botvin, & Griffin, 2002, p. 92). Affective education involves discussions and didactic instruction to raise self-esteem and facilitate responsible decision-making among students. It often does not include information about drug use but emphasizes on interpersonal growth. Information dissemination (through audio/video programs, posters, pamphlets among others) is the most common approach to cannabis use prevention. It aims at increasing knowledge on drugs and arousing fear by emphasizing on the consequences of drug use to foster anti-drug attitudes among the youth. Furthermore, Botvin, and Griffin (2002, p. 101) recommend a generic approach that incorporates school-based and family-based prevention approaches in case of parental addiction to cannabis use.

Drug Aware utilizes campaigns in form of online sensitization materials as well as radio and posters that reach all members of the society. Community-based approaches to substance abuse prevention are highly effective as they increase knowledge and alter attitudes about cannabis use (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997, p. 11). The dissemination of information and creating community awareness on cannabis use underlie the Drug Aware campaigns.

Cannabis Abuse Risk Factors

Cannabis abuse is a result of a number of factors. Since it is a health problem, the paper considers factors that make an individual more likely to abuse cannabis as risk factors while those that make it less likely for an individual to abuse cannabis are protective factors. Interplay of risk factors and protective factors determine the outcomes in a community as far as cannabis abuse is concerned. The risk factors and protective factors for cannabis use are many and varied. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006, p. 2) identifies three categories of risk/protective factors that predispose adolescents to cannabis use. They include:

1. Government policy on cannabis use: A tough policy will make it harder for cannabis abusers to operate while laxity will create an atmosphere that is conducive.
2. Drug culture of a place: Cultures with beliefs that glorify cannabis will witness more abuse of the drug while those that avow cannabis will witness reduced use.
3. Public awareness campaigns from all stakeholders: Presence of parents, the government, and non-governmental organizations in the campaign against cannabis will reduce its use while a single party approach will realize less success in fighting its use.

Other risk factors associated with onset of cannabis use among adolescents include; prior use of alcohol or tobacco, parental drug abuse, criminal activity and behavioural problems (Botvin, & Griffin, 2002, p. 99). The dissemination of information primarily involves the use of online media channels. However, the campaign also involves churches and learning institutions to disseminate the information (Drug Aware 2011). The involvement of multiple stakeholders is essential in dissemination of information to different segments of the population (Keleher, 2007, p. 113-115). The International Union for Health Promotion and Education report on health (IUHPE, 2000) also underscores a multi-sectoral approach. The messages designed and disseminated by Drug Aware provide information about the health and social consequences of cannabis abuse. The main aim is to foster individual and community attitudes towards anti-cannabis use. This is an effective implementation strategy in health promotion, as focuses on creating enabling conditions (De Leeuw 2007, pp. 55-58).

Drug Aware: A Conceptual Framework

Drug Aware’s activities rely on a socio-ecological model that takes into account social factors as well as the attributes of the region under consideration, in this case, Western Australia. Drug Aware recognizes that different domains of human occupation are interdependent, i.e. the schools, the neighbourhood, residences and the surrounding community within particular settings bear some interdependence. As such, this health promotion combines the evidence on appropriate actions in the specific community context before disseminating the messages. In this way, the planning of Drug Aware reflects the core concepts of social ecology that include recognition of the multi-faceted nature of environmental factors on health, environmental controllability to achieve well-being (through the emphasis on healthy lifestyles) and the value of involving behavioural, environmental and educational approaches during the awareness campaigns.

Besides that, Drug Aware employs a multi-pronged message dissemination strategy to increase its reach. Thus, the campaigns are community-wide. In particular, to reach a large number of youths, the campaign involves new media channels such as Twitter and You Tube; channels that are commonly used by the youth. The involvement of multiple media channels serve a very significant purpose, which is, ensuring that all the necessary media resources are assembled from the various points so as to carry out the anti-cannabis use campaign. The campaign also relies on records on cannabis use obtained from the government of Western for its planning and analysis. In this way, Drug Aware’s framework reflects the principles of best practice, which include involvement of the local government, knowledge transfer, planning, and evaluation that relies on statistics from the government of Western Australia.

Drug Aware: Ottawa Charter

Drug Aware has exhibited a high degree of compliance with the Ottawa Charter as far as the fight against abuse of cannabis is concerned. The Ottawa Charter ideas manifest themselves in the Drug Aware campaign in the following ways:

1. The Drug Aware initiative relies on statistics from the government of Western Australia to come up with ways of dealing with cannabis use, which is a widespread problem in Australia. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the percentage of cannabis users in 2004 in Australia was three times the proportion of cannabis users globally (3.8% and 11.3% respectively). This calls for a concerted effort from all sectors. However, the Drug Aware campaigns only involved the government of Western Australia in planning and evaluation of the initiative.
2. Through dissemination of information and the identification and referral of cannabis users, Drug Aware is creating awareness and recognition that cannabis use is a widespread problem (Drug Aware, 2011). In addition, by undertaking the campaign itself through the new media, Drug Aware ensures the message reaches the at-risk age groups with access to new media platforms.
3. The initiative was solely implemented by Drug Aware based on statistics from the government of Western Australia. The campaigns primarily increase awareness about cannabis use, its consequences and the laws relating to cannabis use. By relying on governments statistics, the most affected areas are easily identified, planning carried out to ensure that information reaches the target population. The Ottawa Charter talks about the need for evidence-based health promotion, and Drug Aware meets this milestone in an exceptional manner.
4. Drug aware also uses the help centers to teach the cannabis abusers personal skills. This is a very significant capacity building initiative proposed by the Ottawa Charter. The personal skills taught to cannabis abusers include the manner in which they ought to deal with withdrawal syndromes when they withdrawal from cannabis, how to seek for help when their health deteriorates, and learning how to fight against relapse after withdrawal. This reflects the principles highlighted in the Ottawa charter.

Drug Aware: Objectives

The objectives of Drug Aware campaign are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. The specificity points to the manner in which the Drug Aware objectives are designed to help handle a certain issue in the abuse of cannabis. Measurability is about gauging the number of people who stop using cannabis or reduce their usage of the drug. Attainable and realistic show how the stakeholders of the Drug Aware campaign have not deluded themselves into thinking that they can eliminate cannabis use in Western Australia in a day or two. Timely objectives mean that within a certain period, a certain number of people abandon cannabis use. The objectives of the Drug Aware initiative are not measurable. They include:

1. To lower the prevalence rate of cannabis use through the supply of information on its dangers to discourage new users and encourage regular users to stop the practice
2. Delay the age at which those who wish to use cannabis eventually get to use it as a way of avoiding youthful problems associated with cannabis abuse
3. To increase the number of people in Western Australia who are willing to quit the habit of using cannabis.
4. To encourage people who are suffering from the side effects of cannabis abuse to seek help from the available help centers
5. To sensitize Western Australians on the laws governing the possession and usage of cannabis

When gauged against best practice principles in health promotion, the objectives come out as sound and on point.

Drug Aware: Planning and Needs Assessment

Planning is a crucial step in any undertaking. This is also true for what Drug Aware is doing. Together with the planning, is the research to find out what the area under consideration requires? An educational and ecological approach in the formulating and disseminating of the messages is the planning framework that Drug Aware utilizes (Slama et al., 2007, p. 151). This framework is appropriate for the task that Drug Aware campaign is meant to accomplish. Given the significance of planning, it is mandatory that it be carried out in a collaborative manner by involving all stakeholders (Green & Kreuter, 2005, pp. 3-5). In planning the campaign, the collaboration between WANADA and the Drug and Alcohol Office brought together the professional work, communication experts and the local administrators. Although this reflects the Ottawa charter concepts, important stakeholders such as the youth and the parents were left out. This reflected the Ottawa charter core concepts; it led to the sharing of responsibility of health promotions among various sectors. However, a multi-sectoral approach can derail the implementation and evaluation of the initiative. Keleher (2007) also emphasizes the consideration of social determinants in planning for health promotion. Drug Aware only focused on the popularity of the new media among the youth in disseminating information. Thus, in Drug Aware campaigns, the information that is available for use in the campaigns employs popular online media used by the youth. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are integrated in Drug Aware website the dissemination of information.

Additionally, other segments of the population are reached through traditional communication channels such as the radio. For instance, the radio reaches the older people while posters placed in public places and public events reach all age groups.

Drug Aware: Evaluation

Nutbean (1998, pp. 27-29) stresses the importance of evaluating what has been done in health promotion. This evaluation is important for purposes of measuring effectiveness (Roffman & Stephens, 2006). In the case of cannabis, Emmett & Nice (2009) as well as Solowij (1998) assert that evaluation of progress for those trying to withdraw is important to enable the people trying to help them know how to use their time and other resources properly.

The Drug Aware initiative relies on the records obtained from the government of Western Australia regarding drug use and crime. Given that the decrease in drug use can be attributed to a number of reasons, any decrease in drug use cannot be attributed to Drug Aware campaigns alone. According to Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey, the percentage of students reporting cannabis use decreased by half (36% to 18%) between 1997 and 2005 following anti-drug campaigns (White, & Hayman, 2006, p. 34).

In any social undertaking, evaluation is based on the objectives. Health promotion initiatives evaluation relies on evidence from surveys and the consistency of the research findings to determine the success of the initiative. Drug Aware’s evaluation focuses on whether cannabis abuse is being eliminated, and if so, at what pace. This is determined by the measuring part of the objectives. In other words, evaluation takes into account the numbers of people pledging not to touch cannabis and having avoided it before, the number of those abandoning it, and the number of those reducing its use. In addition, the number of people reporting to help centers seeking help for addictions is part of the evaluation process. At the end of the day, investment in this campaign will only be meaningful if the evaluation process shows that the project is accomplishing its mission. All the tools of evaluation seem to be available for Drug Aware to gauge its performance. The evaluation results indicate that cannabis use is declining among the youth over the last five years, i.e. 18% in 2005 to 11% in 2010 (Drug Aware, 2011).

Fruitful Health Promotion Programs

Drug Aware has mounted a successful health promotion effort when viewed through the prism of best practice principles in health promotion. These include community involvement, evidence-based planning and evaluation, knowledge transfer and multi-disciplinary approach (involving all stakeholders). The multi-disciplinary approach was particularly important in:

• Message formulation where messages are accompanied by illustrations and diagrams to capture the attention of the public
• The dissemination of information through the internet and the radio (Nutbeam, 1998, p. 25)

Conclusion

The Drug Aware initiative employed in campaigning against the abuse of cannabis in Western Australia turns out well when examine under the best practices in health promotion. Proper planning, good evaluation, excellent objectives, consideration of socio-ecological factors and network creation in their efforts are all done well, meaning that getting to stop people from using cannabis is possible.

Reference List

AAP (2008). WA Liberals vow to crack down on cannabis. Perth Now. Web.

Botvin, G. & Griffin, K. (2002). Drug abuse prevention curricula in schools. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum.

De Leeuw, E. (2007). Policies for health: The effectiveness of their development, Adoption and implementation. In D. McQueen and C. Jones (Eds.), Global Perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 51‐66). New York: Springer Publishing.

Drug Aware (2011). Know what you are getting into. Web.

Emmett, D. & Nice, G. (2009). What you need to know about cannabis: Understanding the facts. New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Green, L. & Kreuter, M. (2005). A framework for planning. Chapter 1 in Health Program planning: An educational and ecological approach (pp 1-28). (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Haynes, R., Griffiths, P., Butler, T., Allsop, S. & Gunnell, A. (2010). Drug trends And crime tracking: Relationships between indices of heroin, amphetamine And cannabis use and crime. Western Australia Government: Drug and Alcohol Office Monograph: Number 6.

Henquet, C.; Krabbendam, L.; Spauwen, J.; Kaplan, C.; Lieb, R.; Wittchen, H. -U.; Van Os, J. (2005). Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition For psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. British Journal of Medicine 330 (7481), 11.

IUHPE. (2000). The evidence of health promotion effectiveness: Shaping public Health in a new Europe (2nd Ed.). Part One, Core Document. France: IUHPE.

Kelleher, H. (2007). Health promotion planning and the social determinants of Health. Chapter 8 H. Kelleher, C. MacDougal and B. Murphy (Eds.), Understanding health promotion (pp. 114-133). Melbourne: Oxford Press.

McKim, William A (2002). Drugs and Behaviour: An Introduction to Behavioural Pharmacology (5th Edition). New York: Prentice Hall.

McLaren, J., Lemon, J., Robins, L.,& Mattick, R.(February 2008). Cannabis and Mental Health: Put into Context. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. Australia: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

McQueen, D. (2001). Strengthening the evidence base for health promotion. Health Promotion International, 16(3), 261-268.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1997). Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Cannabis: Know the risks! Sydney: NSW Government.

Nutbeam, D. (1998). Evaluating health promotion – progress, problems and solutions. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 27-44.

Roffman, R. & Robert, S. (2006). Cannabis dependence: its nature, consequences, And treatment. Cambridge: University Press.

Slama, K., Callard, C., Saloojee, Y. & Rithiphakdee, B. (2007). Effective health Promotion against tobacco use. Chapter 10 in D. McQueen and C. Jones (Eds.), Global perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 151‐161). New York: Springer Publishing.

Solowij, N. (1998). Cannabis and cognitive functioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006). Why we should care. New York: United Nations.

White, V. & Hayman, J. (2006). Australian secondary school students’ use of over-counter and illicit substances in 2005. Melbourne: Cancer Council of Victoria.

Cannabis belongs to a genus known as Cannabis from a family of flowering plants, Cannabaecae. Cannabis has had medicinal purposes following its application in cancer treatment, epilepsy, appetite loss, among other terminal ailments. Cannabis growth requires specific conditions, beginning from the soil, which should have sufficient nutrients for its growth and a pH range of 5.8 to 6.5 (Hurgobin et al., 2021). The temperatures should range between 24⁰ C to 30⁰ C; if it exceeds 31⁰ C, Cannabis wilt.

The plant should remain under either artificial or natural light for 16-24 hours (Hurgobin et al., 2021). Cannabis should be watered regularly and in consideration of light. The ideal humidity for optimal growth should be between 40-60% RH (Hurgobin et al., 2021). Only a few places can have all of the above conditions conducive to the growth of Cannabis. Thus, technological intervention ensures that the conditions are not relying on nature. Over the years, different innovation has been made to facilitate the growth of Cannabis. This study seeks to explore various technological applications in cannabis cultivation.

Technological advancement plays a crucial role in ensuring that the growth of Cannabis is not affected by natural environment. The physical environment keeps changing depending on factors such as weather changes, humidity, and temperature. Fluctuating conditions limit the production of Cannabis. The demand for Cannabis has grown in the most developed countries due to legalization of the cultivation and processing of Cannabis. Setting and tracking of each plant in the field, data analytics about Cannabis are achieved through technology

The technological innovation examines state of the art in cannabis cultivation technology. The technology is used in the modern-day for tracking every plant and proposing new solutions. The methods have already been implemented to tackle the challenges in cannabis cultivation. The technological solutions help in creating efficiencies of growing Cannabis. Using an examining technology maximizes the production of Cannabis. Several methods of advanced technology in cannabis growing have been applied. In most places, especially in developed countries, different technological approaches have been involved in growing Cannabis. Such methods include using greenhouses, indoor grow technology and application of vertical farm technology.

The Greenhouse Technology

The use of greenhouse provides a sustainable output of Cannabis, and this is applied in the US and Canada, where greenhouses occupy up to 40-acres of land. The greenhouse helps to control the physical environment of the plants; it has mitigated the smell of Cannabis growing, according to the ordinance of the area. Greenhouse technology ensures that sunlight will not burn the plants due to changing intensity (Hurgobin et al., 2021). Greenhouses are fitted with retractable energy saving, which offers a shade curtain, a heat regulator inside the greenhouse. Again, the greenhouse uses biomass to power the heating units, and the installation of hot water radiant floors ensures the area zone of heating has been controlled, thus helping in the continuous production of cannabis.

The Indoor Grow Technology

The use of indoor growing technology has helped in fostering cannabis production. After Cannabis has been legalized in Colorado, adults have been using Cannabis since the year 2014 (Hurgobin et al., 2021). The enormous consumption of Cannabis around Colorado has resulted in a warehouse in places like Denver. Most of the cities in Colorado were required to grow Cannabis. Growers who practiced outdoor growth and small indoor growth became brilliant building designers, thus evolving the indoor concept. Indoor cannabis cultivation has four significant issues that are required to handle; pest mitigation, HVAC, lighting, and contamination (Hurgobin et al., 2021). A few challenges in indoor grow technology have led to the production of substantial Cannabis that can sustain the consumption rate in Colorado.

Use of Application in Rescuing Plants

The use of seed-to-sale tracking is required in controlling the compliance of the Cannabis growth. Technology ensures that every seed for planting can be traced to avoid potential diversion from the black market. The software has been developed to ensure that they automate Cannabis for data entry compliance to the seed-to-sale platform for seed track. GeoShepard project uses an offline mode, where users can use their phones out in the field without Wi-Fi access. Research has been conducted to come up with more analytic software. The software has been built to help the growers to understand the statistics of the business. The software helps in calculating, estimating the production quantity and CSI for Cannabis. The seed-to-sale application has made work easier for both the farmers and the entire cannabis industry.

The Use of a Vertical Farm

Vertical farming is the newest technological innovation in cannabis farming. The method involves growing the plants vertically. The plants are so tiny to grow in a non-traditional farm location. The vertical farm is a plant wall inside a tight gas envelope, eliminating contamination and pest issues as plants face each other. The configuration of this method allows for a dense canopy and the use of a LED light to mimicking morning, noon, and evening light, and they are software controlled.

The sites in Quebec are in rooms that are 25 feet in height (Hurgobin et al., 2021). However, Growex is planning to go higher than that by eliminating interaction based on the human arm by replacing them with a robotic arm to pick up row plants and then bring the raw down for a particular person to work. The use of vertical farming has made cannabis farming easier to control diseases and pests.

In conclusion, cannabis technological advancement has made a significant milestone in ensuring that the production of Cannabis has been effective and efficient. Population growth has created the demand for cannabis production increase. The natural methods of growing Cannabis could not bring the necessary output to cope up with the growing demand. Opting for technological measures to grow Cannabis will be the best measure. Technological methods for producing Cannabis include greenhouses, indoor farming, and the use of a vertical farm.

Reference

Hurgobin, B., Tamiru‐Oli, M., Welling, M. T., Doblin, M. S., Bacic, A., Whelan, J., & Lewsey, M. G. (2021). Recent advances in Cannabis sativa genomics research. New Phytologist, 230(1), 73-89.

Introduction

The use of cannabis is often associated with memory challenges in the short term and long term basis. Studies continue to be carried out to determine if chronic cannabis use affects long-term memory by examining variety of cognitive functions. This paper reviews related literature on memory dysfunction in cannabis users (Parath, 2009).

The literature review includes studies that looked at memory function in cannabis users of chronic intoxication period (Austin, 2010). Specifically, it examines studies in working memory and verbal episodic memory. In addition, they have continued to deduce evidence indicating impaired encoding, storage, manipulation and retrieval systems in long-term cannabis users (Allhoff, 2010).

Cannabis, Brain, and Memory

Cannabis is extracted from the plant Cannabis sativa. Usually, Cannabis is taken in the form of dried leaves and female flower heads, or the resin secreted by these. This drug can be eaten but is more usually smoked in the form of cannabis cigarette, or joint, often mixed with tobacco, or in pipe.

Cannabis is an illicit drug that is commonly consumed in Europe and approximately 10% of adults aged 16-59 years in the UK used it in the year 2000 (Solowij, 1998). Majority of cannabis users attribute short memory problems as the most prevalent and this forms part of the reason many of them seek help to quit or reduce its consumption.

Scientific literature in general avers memory impairment as often cited in relation to cannabis use (Wilson et al., 2002). Cannabis use has risen to become the most widely used drug in the developed world over the years. The memory function, in general, has been studied in acute administration studies of long-term users of cannabis to humans and animals, and in long-term studies of cannabis users (Pope et al., 2002).

Cannabinoid System and Memory

Endogenous Cannabinoid system is directly involved in the necessary functions of memory. This is because cannabinoid receptors happen in high density in brain areas critically involved in memory functions. Profoundly, cannabinoid affects synaptic plasticity underlying learning and memory, disrupting long-term potential in hippocampus (Martin-Santos, 2010).

Cannabinoid receptors are metabotropic receptors which are the most common in the brain and are involved in multiple physiological and behavioural events. They are found on pre-synaptic terminals in locations concerned in cognition, especially learning and memory, critically in hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, basal ganglia and cerebellum (Miller, 2010).

Endogenous cannabinoid system guides the flow of information in the brain through retrograded signalling, modulating inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitter release critical for synaptic plasticity, depolarisation-induced suppression of inhibition or excitation, long-term potentiation, and hence learning, memory and other higher cognitive functions (Kanayama et al., 2004).

Structural Brain Changes Related with Chronic Cannabis Use

There is lack of concrete lack evidence in most undertaken indicating that structural brain alterations in cannabis users. There are no global or regional alterations in brain tissue volume or composition in some recent studies (Ries, 2009). Other studies have discovered grey and white matter density alterations globally or in para-hippocampal areas.

Utilizing more sensitive measures and assessing cannabis consumers with greater exposure to cannabis than previous research, critical reduction of hippocampus and amygdale volumes in long-term cannabis users have recently been reported (Lyketsos et al., 1999).

Hippocampus volume reduction was related to dose, correlating with current daily dose, and cumulatively. Only excessive daily doses over long period of time, will lead to structural changes.

Another critical factor may be the age of onset of cannabis use. This has a devastating impact to the brain, specifically cannabis consumers’ start at the early stages of neurodevelopment (Allhoff, 2010). Evidence adduced recently of reduced neuronal and axonal integrity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex represented by magnetic resonance spectroscopic markers of metabolism (Solowij, 2009).

Changes related to dose were found in anterior cingulate and globus pallidum, but not in hippocampus. Solid evidence for dose-related cumulative neuronal damage, neuronal and synaptic density. Since functional dysfunction is likely to precede major structural changes in the brain or to show concomitant to more minor neural alterations, this presents good reason to think that long-term effects of use of cannabis on memory function (Wilson et al., 2002).

A Review of Related Literature

Effects of Cannabis Use on Cognitive Ability in the Long-Term

Cannabis has the ability to exert prominent effects on the central nervous system. In the central nervous system, cannabis acts on an endogenous cannabinoid system that is concerned with regulation of mood, memory, emotion, attention, and other cognitive functions (Hall, 2009).

Cannabinoid receptors play a significant role in memory storage and retrieval processes. Discoveries from human and animal research reveal that prolonged use of cannabis changes the functioning of the cannabinoid system of the brain. However, this does not lead to serious impairment (Solowij, 2002).

Observation for structural brain impairment for in humans following long-term cannabis use has not been sustained generally. Some current research has discovered no global or regional alterations in brain tissue volumes. Other studies have, however, shown grey and white matter density changes worldwide undertaken to date lack evidence of changes in structural brain in cannabis users or in para-hippocampal areas (Wilson et al., 2002).

A recent study that used unique techniques of measurement to indicate that frequent but relatively short term use of cannabis creates neither structural brain abnormalities nor global or regional alterations in the brain tissue volume or composition that are assessable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Pope et al., 2002).

Several studies have indicated altered brain function and metabolism in humans due to acute and chronic use of cannabis using cerebral blood flow, positron emission tomography, and electroencephalographic methods. In sum, use of cannabis has deleterious effects on memory and attention (Solowij, 2009). Individuals who use cannabis show clear signs of cognitive impairments relative to controls.

More of concern about cannabis is that its use may cause neurological damage resulting in persistent cognitive deficits, but the evidence is currently inconclusive. The evidence, however, does suggest that early use of cannabis may cause long-term cognitive problems (Solowij, 1998).

Chronic Use of Cannabis and Cognitive Dysfunction

Cognitive dysfunctions or impairments, specifically deficits in short-term memory, are reported by many cannabis addicts who seek help to stop using cannabis and are often advanced as one of the main reasons for needing to stop using cannabis (Allhoff, 2010).

However, evidence provided from controlled studies shows that long-term heavy use of cannabis does not appear to produce severe debilitating dysfunction of cognitive function like that produced by chronic heavy alcohol use (Ries, 2009). Nonetheless, there is evidence that long-term or heavy cannabis users exhibit more subtle types of cognitive impairment that are detected in well-controlled studies using sensitive measures (Lyketsos et al., 1999).

Earlier studies of the cognitive effects of chronic cannabis use have elicited major concern that cannabis users may have had poorer cognitive functioning than controls before they commenced to administer cannabis (Sadider, 2010). However, studies from the recent past have looked at this problem by matching users and non-users on estimated premorbid intellectual functioning or on test performance prior to the onset of cannabis use.

These studies have revealed cognitive impairments associated with frequent and long-term use of cannabis (Solowij, 1998). Frequent cannabis consumers were showed impairment in tests assessing verbal expression, mathematics, and memory. Heavy users of cannabis were more susceptible to interference, made more perseverance errors, had poorer recall, and indicated deficient learning compared to light users (Wilson et al., 2002).

Solowij et al., (2002) discovered few dysfunctions when they compared neuropsychological performance of dependent, heavy cannabis users with an average 10 years of regular use to anon-user control group. Chronic cannabis users with a regular use averaging 24 years were discovered with impaired attention and had retarded memory in general with dysfunctional verbal learning.

Both groups of users indicated impaired temporal judgment. Solowij (1998) in a series of earlier studies applied more sensitive measures of brain function to demonstrate attention impairments in short-term users. Solowij et al., (2002) deduced that long term use of cannabis escalated memory impairment.

Specific deficits in verbal learning, memory and attention continue to be the most consistently replicated impairments to cannabis users. These impairments are associated to the period, frequency, and cumulative dose impacts (Pope et al., 2002).

Differential effects of the various parameters of cannabis use such as, frequency, duration and dose, have not been investigated consistently. As a result, studies are still ongoing to determine whether memory impairments should be related or associated to acute, drug dose, and others occurring the brain memory due to long-term cannabis exposure (Solowij et al., 2002).

Studies continue to be conducted to investigate the propensity for recovery of cognitive functioning following cessation of cannabis use. Solowij (1998) discovered partial recovery following median 2 years abstinence in a small group of ex-users performing a selective attention task. However, sensitive brain event-related potential measures continued to indicate impaired information processing that was correlated with the number of years of cannabis use.

Solowij et al., (2002) showed persistent dose-associated decrements in neuro-cognitive performance after 28 days abstinence in heavy young users of mean age 20, 5 years use. According to Pope et al., (2002), verbal and memory deficits persisted in those who had started using cannabis prior to the age of 17 years but not in those who commenced later in life.

The sampled population was between the ages of 30 and 55 years at the time of research. This observation agrees with other observations of adverse effects in that beginning regular cannabis use before versus after the age of 17 years (Wilson, et al., 2000). There is still need for further studies to elucidate the effect of cannabis use in developing brain.

Solowij (2009) reported that hippocampus, prefrontal cortex and cerebellum are main sections of endogenous cannabinoid activity and heavily implicated in the cognitive impairments associated with chronic cannabis use. Lyketsos et al., (1999) were able to report the only large-scale prospective epidemiological study of the effect of cannabis use on cognitive functioning.

They made assessments on cognitive reduction on the Mini-Mental State Examination in 1318 adults over 11.5 years. They deduced no relationship between cannabis use and decline in Mini-Mental state Examination score, and this persisted when adjustments were made for sex, age, education, minority status, and use of alcohol and tobacco. This study concurs with other evidence that cannabis does not produce gross cognitive impairment (Pope et al., 2002).

Memory in Chronic Cannabis Users

A cute administration of cannabis can disrupt the working memory. Animal literature exists that reports impaired working memory following acute and chronic use of cannabinoids, including an impaired delayed matching to sample tasks that resemble lesions or removal of the hippocampus (Azzam, 2010). A growing number of recent literature have continued to study working memory and related functions in chronic cannabis users.

Kanayama et al., (2004) examined spatial working memory in long-term heavy cannabis users by using functional magnetic resonance imaging using relatively simple tasks. In this study non-users made non-significant more errors on the task, although few errors in both groups reflected the simplicity of the task and it has been suggested that performance deficits in chronic cannabis users are more likely to be elicited in complex tasks (Kanayama et al., 2004).

In addition, Kanayama et al (2004) studies revealed that cannabis users exhibited widespread brain activation with enhanced activation of areas utilized in spatial working memory tasks. They interpreted their findings in terms of cannabis users experiencing subtle neuro-physiological deficits for which they compensate by working harder and calling upon additional brain regions to meet task requirements (Mack, 2010).

In a study of abstinent adolescents aged 13-18, cannabis and tobacco smokers compared to tobacco-only smokers (Hall, 2009). The group identified functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of changed neuro-circuitry during the performance of an n-back auditory working memory task in the cannabis group, but only during nicotine withdrawal.

Representative samples were tested twice, once during an ad libitum cigarette smoking condition, and again after 24 hrs abstention from tobacco and cannabis users were in abstinence from cannabis for at least two weeks prior to testing. Cannabis users who abstained from tobacco revealed enhanced task-biased activation, for instance, posterior cortical regions and others (Solowij, 1998).

A study using real world functions approach examined mood and cognitive performance in a sample of workers with and without recent cannabis use, before and after work at the start and end of the working week. There were scanty details regarding cannabis levels in the sample. A verbal reasoning task was used to measure working memory.

Other memory tasks encompassed immediate and delayed free recall and recognition of 20 words presented on a computer screen and a semantic processing task measuring speed of knowledge retrieval from general memory (Pope et al 2002). Poorer performance in verbal reasoning was apparent in cannabis users at the start of the working week and correlated and frequency of cannabis use.

Lacklustre performance in verbal reasoning in delayed recall was found in cannabis users pre-work at the end of the working week and was correlated with duration of cannabis use. Cannabis users also indicated slower response organization and lower alertness than non-users, and slower psychomotor speed toward the end of the week, reflecting a lack of improvement in the speed over the working week in contrast to controls, rather than a progressive slowing by cannabis users (Solowij et al., 2002).

Episodic Verbal Memory

Verbal learning and memory have been the most impaired cognitive functions in the studies of acute cannabis use as well as in chronic cannabis users. Cannabis users experience impairments in cognition in terms of the period of cannabis use and the frequency of cannabis consumption, and lastly, the impact of cumulative dosage.

Studies of acute cannabis use suggest that poorer performance can be seen in immediate and delayed recall of words. Recent studies have replicated dysfunction in learning, recall, and delayed recall, with some evidence of rot. The studies deduced 17-hour abstinent long-term chronic cannabis users recalled fewer words than shorter-term chronic users and non-user controls over learning trials (Roffman, 2009).

Conclusion

Satisfactory evidence has gathered from recent research of cannabis users in the unintoxicated state to conclude heavy cannabis use in the long term is associated with impaired memory function. This implies that impaired memory function goes beyond the period of acute use and is related to a variety of cannabis use parameters.

Studies deduce memory impairments to increase proportionate to frequency, dosage, and cumulative dosage of cannabis administration. However, the exact that lead to memory deficits remain to be determined. A collection of research of cannabis users abstinent for reasonably long durations suggest that dysfunctional memory may persist for some time after acute use (Solowij, 2009).

The overall evidence from the various reviews suggests that the use of cannabis does in a way affect negatively upon the function of memory. Greater deficits in memory may be apparent in tasks that are more complex and among chronic cannabis users. The kind of memory deficits in chronic cannabis users is not different to that observed under acute influence (Roffman, 2009).

Heavy cannabis consumers in the unintoxicated state also indicate impaired immediate, but further delayed free call of verbal information, poor retrieval of information from memory, and difficulties manipulating the contents of the working memory. Memory recognition is inconsistently reported and dysfunctional (Sadider, 2010).

Strategies of organizational nature within memory have not received sufficient research. Limited evidence is available for strategy use in spatial working memory. Several studies found similar dysfunctions in cannabis users in learning, on measures of immediate and delayed recall and to research where other verbal learning tests have been administered to cannabis users (Roffman, 2009).

In sum, there exist a wide range of individual differences in the propensity to create memory impairment associated with long term chronic cannabis use. The effect of multiple interpersonal factors on resilience to and susceptibility to cognitive dysfunction deserves greater attention. Such factors may involve personality and differing genotypes. A perspective to substance use in general may also confer enhanced vulnerability to cannabis related cognitive memory and needs further attention in prospective studies (Allhoff, 2010).

Generally, findings of changed brain activation from imaging studies of cannabis users suggest compensatory procedures activated to ameliorate cognitive deficits. A number of recent advances in techniques are beginning to interrogate pertinent questions; however, the field is still open for continued research. The specific nature of memory deficits in cannabis users has not been comprehensively elucidated. Evidence exists for dysfunctional encoding, storage and retrieval (Roffman, 2009).

Reference List

Allhoff, F., Jacquette, D., & Cusick, R. (2010). Cannabis. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Austin, L. (2010). Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing for Canadian Practice. Sydney: Wolter Kluwer Health.

Azzam, A., Yanofski, J., & Kaftarian, E. (2010). First Aid for Psychiatry Boards. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Hall, W. (2009). Review Adverse Health Effects of Non Medical Cannabis. Elsevier, 374

Kanayama, G., Rogowska, J., pope, G., Gruber, A., Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2004). Spatial working Memory in Heavy Cannabis Users. Psychopharmacology, 176:239-47.

Lyketsos, g., Garrett, E., Liang, K., & Anthony, C. (1999). Cannabis Dependence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mack, A., Harrington, A., & Frances, R. (2010). Clinical Manual for Treatment of Alcoholism and Addictions. New York: American Psychiatric Pub.

Martin-Santos, R., Fagundo, A., Crippa, J., et al., (2010). Neuroimaging in Cannabis Use. Psychological Medicine, 40, 385-398.

Miller, N., Gold, M. (2010). Addiction Disorders in Medical Populations. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Parath, A. (2009). Clearing the Smoke on cannabis. Canadian Center on Substance Abuse, vol.30

Pope, G., Gruber, J., Hudson, Huestis, A., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2002). Cognitive Measures in Long Term Cannabis Users. Journal of Clinical pharmacology, 42, 41-47.

Ries, R., Miller, S., & Fiellen, D. (2009). Principles of Addiction Medicine. Sydney: Wolter Kluwer Health.

Roffman, R., & Stephen, R. (2009). Cannabis Dependence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sadider, P., & Keshavan, M. (2010). Use as a Precipitant of Psychosis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Solowij, N. (2009). Cognitive Abnormalities and Cannabis Use. Psychopharmacol, 23(3), 266-77.

Solowij, N. (2002). Cognitive Functioning of Long Term heavy Cannabis Users Seeking Treatment. Journal of American Medical Association, 287(9), 1123-1131.

Solowij, N. (1998). Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning. ICambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, W., Mathew, R., Turkington, T., Hawk, T., & Coleman, E. (2002). Brain Morphological Changes and Early Marijuana Use. J Addict Dis 2000; 19: 1-22.

The purpose of this study will be to examine psychiatric disorders that have been induced by overdependence on Cannabis. Cannabis Sativa is a herb originating from the Cannabaceae family that is recognised worldwide as a euphoric and hallucinogenic drug.

The strong smelling herb is used for medicinal purposes, for making hemp fibres and for developing recreational drugs (hashish and marijuana). The different parts of Cannabis have been used for different purposes and functions with one of the most common uses being for recreational purposes.

Marijuana is basically derived from the dried flowers and leaves of the cannabis sativa plant which is usually ingested or smoked while hashish is a resinous extract obtained from the plant which is usually vaporized or smoked (Elsohy, 2007).

Cannabis is one of the most famous recreational drugs in the world after caffeine, alcohol and tobacco where over 100 million people especially in the United States are consumers of the drug on an annual basis.

The reason for this is attributed to the fact that Marijuana which is derived from the Cannabis herb allows the user to be in a state of relaxation thereby reducing any cases of anxiety, paranoia or stress.

The tetrahydrocannabinol compound found in the leaves of the herb usually acts as the main stimulant once it is consumed by the user enabling them to experience a sense of peace and relaxation (Bolla et al, 2002). The drug however presents tertiary and secondary psychoactive effects that might pose a threat to the individual taking the drugs some of which include an increased heart rate, hallucinations, loss of memory, increased anxiety levels, high energy levels and an increasing sense of hunger.

If larger doses of the drug are taken through smoking, vaporization or oral ingestion, the effects might last longer for 24 hours where the consumer experiences both the secondary and tertiary psychoactive effects of the drug (Fusar-Poli et al, 2009). Marijuana is a very addictive drug which means that once it is consumed, it is very difficult to stop smoking or ingesting the drug because of the various effects that are presented by Cannabis.

Cannabis Dependence

Cannabis dependence is defined as a condition where an individual who continues to take Cannabis or Marijuana demonstrates cognitive, behavioural and physiological symptoms.

Based on the DSM-IV criteria for diagnosing substance dependence on various drugs such as the one understudy (Michael et al, 2004), cannabis dependence is determined by the existence of three or the following criteria which might occur within a period of 12 months.

Tolerance which is the first DSM-IV criteria explains Cannabis dependence to be the need that an individual has to consume large amounts of Cannabis Sativa so that they can achieve an increased level of intoxication that will lead to diminished thoughts, emotions or feelings on the part of the user (Michael et al, 2004).

The second criteria based on the DSM-IV criterion for substance abuse is withdrawal which explains Cannabis dependence to be a manifestation of withdrawal symptoms such as increased restlessness, insomnia or poor sleeping habits, increased appetite as the drug brings about hunger, irritability, paranoia and anger.

Other DSM-IV criteria that are used to explain dependence of marijuana is when an individual takes the substance in large amounts for a long period of time than was intended to relieve anxiety or stress, the individual experiences a persistent desire to reduce substance abuse but unsuccessfully fails to do so and/or they spend most of their time and resources trying to acquire the substance or drug which means that their social life and other recreational activities are abandoned because of the continued use of the drug (Wenger et al, 2003).

Based on the various studies that have been conducted on the dependence of cannabis, the drug has presented a less addictive potential when compared to hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, tobacco or alcohol (Coffey et al, 2003). According to Michael et al (2004), Cannabis dependence has been cited as one of the clinical entities of substance abuse and dependence in the DSM-IV of mental disorders criteria.

The coding criterion that is used by the DSM-IV is usually based on the international classification of diseases where the signs and symptoms of diseases are identified and described in the various versions of DSM-IV textbooks. Based on the DSM-IV criteria, cannabis dependence falls under the category of substance related disorders as the individuals who consume the drug experience the various side effects that lead to cannabis dependence (Michael et al, 2004).

To further explain cannabis dependence, the extended use of marijuana or hashish is likely to produce various changes in the bodily processes of an individual which affect how cannabis is absorbed or metabolized by the individual. These changes which are referred to as pharmacokinetic changes usually force the user to increase their dosage of the drug so that they can be able to achieve a desirable effect which is known as a higher tolerance to marijuana or Cannabis Sativa (Joy et al, 1999).

Higher doses of cannabis further reinforce the metabolism rate of the individual thereby increasing the rate at which the drug is broken down and expelled from the body. This means that Cannabis sativa, marijuana and hashish act as a system of reinforcement to the metabolic functions of an individual’s digestive system as well as their small and large intestines (Wenger et al, 2003).

According to Hall et al (2001), the risk factors of Cannabis dependence are usually determined by the number of doses an individual user takes in a day as well as the frequency of these doses. Based on their research, the authors determined that one in every ten people who consumed cannabis were more than likely to become dependent on the drug at some point in their life. People who consumed the drug frequently (five times in a day) were more than likely to increase their risk of developing dependence on the drug.

The risk factors that are considered to be the major contributors to cannabis dependence based on longitudinal studies conducted by Copeland et al (2004) include the frequent use of the drug especially at a young age where drug users who begin taking the drug during their teenage or adolescent years are at a greater risk of being cannabis dependent.

Coffey et al (2000) conducted a study in Victoria, Australia where they examined 2032 high school students to determine the impact that young age had on cannabis dependence.

The results of their study revealed that mid-school consumption of cannabis sativa was mostly associated with other factors such as frequent cigarette smoking, peer pressure from other students who are ingesting or smoking cannabis sativa and anti-social behaviour such as stealing, sexual promiscuity and violent tendencies.

Coffey et al’s (2000) study also revealed that the regular use of marijuana or Cannabis Sativa among young people at an early age continued to persist even as the adolescents approached young adulthood.

A follow up study conducted by Coffey et al (2003) of the high school students who had attained the ages of 20 to 21 years revealed that one in five the adolescent users of the drug demonstrated dependence to cannabis well into the early stages of adulthood.

Other risk factors that have been related to an increased risk of cannabis dependence include psychological distress where individuals use the drug to relieve feelings of distress, anger or sadness, poor parenting where children raised by parents who are cannabis consumers are more than likely to develop cannabis dependence in their teenage and adult years and influence from peers where children with friends who smoke or ingest cannabis are more than likely to consume the drug and also become cannabis dependent at an older age.

Ehrenreich et al (1999) from their study of cannabis dependence from a young age have concluded that there exists strong evidence that children who are exposed to cannabis or marijuana at a young age are more than likely to become cannabis dependent when they are older.

Psychiatric Disorders

A psychiatric disorder which is otherwise referred to as a mental illness/disorder is a psychological or behavioural pattern that is usually associated to emotional distress or mental disabilities which an individual goes through. Psychiatric disorders are not part of the normal development of an individual and they are therefore termed as abnormal manifestations of the mental health of the individual.

Psychiatric disorders encompass very many mental health conditions which affect the behavioural, intellectual and cognitive abilities of an individual and some of these mental health conditions include anxiety disorders, personality disorders, sexual disorders, eating disorders, dissociative disorders and drug dependence disorders (Akiskal & Benazzi, 2006).

Psychiatric disorders or mental illnesses usually affect the mental well being of an individual as well as their cognitive capacity further deteriorating their intellectual capabilities and functions (Insel & Wang, 2010).

Mental disorders are caused by a variety of factors where most researchers have conceded that the disorders arise from genetic vulnerabilities or predispositions. Other studies have revealed that psychiatric disorders result from psychological, emotional, sexual and physical traumas during the formative years of a child.

These traumatic experiences usually come to manifest themselves as the child continues to develop intellectually as well as emotionally and if they are not managed properly they might lead to psychiatric disorders.

Based on a significant number of studies, children who have been sexually abused contribute significantly to the percentage of causation factors that lead to mental or psychiatric disorders during their adulthood years (Kashner et al, 2003).

Based on worldwide statistics, the number of people who suffer from psychiatric disorders have been estimated to be one in every three people in over 100 countries around the world (WHO, 2000).

In the United States for example, the number of people who suffer from psychiatric disorders accounts for 46 percent of the total American population where one in every three Americans suffers from a mental illness at one point in their lives (Kessler et al, 2005).

The most common psychiatric disorders based on the World Mental Health Survey initiative include anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance disorders and impulse control disorders which are common in all but a few countries in the world (Demyttenaere et al, 2004). Psychiatric disorders that are not suitably dealt with result in obsessive or compulsive behaviour, manic depression, paranoia, delusions or hallucinations or violent behaviour.

Cannabis Induced Psychiatric Disorders

There exists limited research on the clinical implications of cannabis induced psychiatric disorders despite the existence of medical evidence that cannabis or marijuana is linked to the genesis of paranoid schizophrenia in an individual (Arseneault et al, 2004).

Based on various research studies (Hall & Degenhardt, 2004: Johns, 2001: Large et al 2011), the psychotic symptoms of continued or frequent marijuana consumption were usually short-lived and the cases of total remission were expected in patients who developed psychiatric disorders.

These results were however based on case studies that lacked any follow-up information that could be used to further explain whether cannabis dependence elicited any psychiatric disorders in individuals (Arendt et al, 2005).

A follow-up study conducted by Arendt et al (2005) revealed that the prognosis for cannabis-induced psychiatric disorders cannot be properly ascertained because such a condition is termed to be a rare occurrence by the American Psychiatric Association as well as the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-IV) of mental disorders.

The study conducted by Arendt et al (2005) was the first to provide an accurate estimate of the rates of incidence that can be attributed to cannabis induced psychiatric disorders. The results of the follow-up study were able to reveal that half of the 535 people who were under examination were treated for cannabis induced psychotic disorders with paranoid schizophrenia being the most dominant form of mental illness.

The follow-up study also revealed that there were 77 percent of new psychotic episodes reported in majority of the population involved in the follow-up where male participants and people of a young age were associated with a more severe outcome of cannabis induced psychiatric disorders (Arendt et al, 2005).

Most of the patients who were consumers or users of cannabis sativa recorded an increase the level of schizophrenic-spectrum disorders which occurred within a span of more than a year.

Also for the majority of the patients placed under the follow-up study, cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms were seen to be the first step in the development of schizophrenic-spectrum disorders or other severe forms of paranoid schizophrenia.

Arendt et al’s (2005) study is however inconsistent with the findings from previous studies such as those conducted by Talbott and Teague in 1969, Thacore and Shukla in 1976 and Carney et al in 1984 where their results revealed that people who were users of cannabis sativa demonstrated complete remission of the effects of the drug when the individuals abstained from using the drug completely.

However, the patients examined by the researchers were not followed up after the cannabis induced psychotic condition remitted which means that their studies did not provide any long-term data that would be used to explain cannabis induced psychiatric disorders.

Many of the investigations reported that cannabis induced psychotic conditions usually subsided at a faster rate than the psychiatric disorders which were not induced by any substances all.

Arendt et al’s study was able to dispute previous findings where they discovered that the development of paranoid schizophrenia was often delayed in the case of cannabis induced psychosis.

They based this finding on a sample population of 47 percent of the people understudy who received a diagnosis a year after seeking treatment for cannabis induced psychotic conditions.

The researchers were able to conclude that cannabis induced psychotic disorders were of great prognostic concern and importance and doctors/psychiatrists needed to treat the disorders once they were diagnosed in patients (Arendt et al, 2008).

Conclusion

The discussion focused on cannabis dependence which is how an individual constantly consumes marijuana to achieve a feeling of relaxation or euphoria. The discussion also highlighted psychiatric disorders and identified the psychotic illnesses that arise as a result of continued cannabis consumption.

Most of the research referred to in the study pinpointed the fact that cannabis induced psychotic disorders did not last for long and they were therefore of no concern to health practitioners and psychiatrists. Only one study was able to concur that psychiatric disorders which arose as a result of cannabis dependence were of a major concern to doctors.

References

Akiskal, H.S., & Benazzi, F. (2006). The DSM-IV and ICD-10 categories of recurrent (Major) depressive and bipolar II disorders: evidence that they lie on a dimensional spectrum. Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol: 92 5-54

Arendt, M., Rosenberg, R., Foldager, L., & Perto, G. (2005). Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: follow-up study of 535 incident cases. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 187:510-515

Arendt, M., Mortensen, P.B., Rosenberg, R., Pedersen, C.B., & Waltoft, B.L. (2008). Familial predisposition for psychiatric disorder: comparison of subjects treated for Cannabis-Induced psychosis and schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(11): 1269 – 1274

Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J., et al. (2004) Causal association between Cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184:110 -117

Bolla, K.I., Brown, K., Eldreth, D., Tate, K., & Cadet, J.L. (2002). Dose-related Neurocognitive effects of marijuana use. Neurology. 59(9):1337-1343

Coffey, C., Lynskey, M., Wolfe, R., & Patton, G.C. (2000). Initiation and progression of Cannabis use in a population-based Australian adolescent longitudinal study. Addiction. 95(11):1679-1690

Coffey, C., Carlin, J.B., Lynskey M., Li, N., & Patton, G.C. (2003). Adolescent precursor of cannabis use in a population-based Australian adolescent longitudinal study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(4):330-336

Copeland, J., Gerber, S., & Swift, W. (2004). Evidence-based answers to cannabis questions: a review of the literature. A report prepared for the Australian National Council on Drugs. New South Wales, Australia: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Australia

Demyttenaere, K., Bruffaerts, R., & Posada-Villa, J. (2004). Prevalence, severity and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Journal of American Medical Association, 291(21):2581-2590

Ehrenreich, H., Rinn, T., Kunert H. J., Moeller, M.R., Poser, W., Schilling, L., & Hoehe, M.R. (1999). Specific attentional dysfunction in adults following early start of cannabis use. Psychopharmacology, 142(3):295-301

Elsohy, M. (2007). Marijuana and the cannabinoids. New York: Humana Press Fusar-Poli, P., Crippa, J.A., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2009). Distinct effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on neural activation during emotional processing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(1):95-105

Hall, W., Degenhardt, L., & Lynskey, M. (2001). The health and psychological effects of Cannabis use. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Ageing

Hall, W. & Degenhardt, L. (2004). Is there a specific cannabis psychosis? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Insel, T.R., & Wang, P.S. (2010). Rethinking mental illness. Journal of American Medical Association, 303(19):1970-1971

Johns, A. (2001). Psychiatric effects of cannabis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178:116-122

Joy, J.E., Watson, S.J., and Benson, J.A. (1999). Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press

Kashner, T.M., Rush, A.J. & Suris, A. (2003). Impact of structured clinical interviews on physician practices in community mental health settings. Psychiatric Services, 54(5):712-718

Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K.R., & Walters, E.E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6):593-602

Large, M., Sharma, S., Compton, M.T., Slade, T., & Nielssen, O. (2011). Cannabis use and earlier onset of psychosis: a systematic meta-analysis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51-57

Michael, B. F., Frances, A., & Pincus, H.A. (2004). DSM-IV-TR guidebook. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing

Wenger, T., Moldrich, G., & Furst, S. (2003). Neoromorphological background of Cannabis addiction. Brain Research Bulletin, Vol: 61125-128

WHO (2000). Cross-national comparisons of the prevalences and correlates of mental disorders. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol: 78(4).

Abstract

The release of the “New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act” gave a start to the new phase of debate around marijuana legalization in New Jersey. The bill provides exact figures concerning taxation and highlights the legal requirements for the cities of the state to host the marijuana industry. While many New Jerseans, same as the residents of Michigan and Montana, demonstrate their utmost excitement about the upcoming changes in legislation, neighboring states do not share their enthusiasm.

The bill adoption is accompanied by a range of complexities: the act seems to affect racial minorities and create difficulties with clearing criminal records of minor offenders. Nevertheless, many believe that marijuana legalization will have a positive effect on the medical sector and will bring billions of dollars to the budget.

Introduction

The debate around the need to legalize marijuana in New Jersey has been held for several years. Because the illegal market has substantially strengthened its position in the state, the idea of legalizing cannabis has gained more supporters these days (Fairman, 2016).

Democratic leaders of the state are convinced that removing restrictions on using recreational marijuana will help to increase public safety, save funds, improve racial justice, and optimize the existing judicial system. If the “New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act” is approved, the problem of inequality of the current drug policies will be finally resolved (Livio, 2018, para. 2). Knowing that smoking cannabis is no longer illegal would allow the local government to shift resources to the spheres that require them most.

The New Regulatory Act: Facts, Revenues, and Key Principles

The months of private negotiations between the democratic leaders of New Jersey finally resulted in the release of a blueprint underlining the key details concerning marijuana legalization. On November 21, 2018 “New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act” was introduced to a wide audience (Livio, 2018, para. 2). The bill legally permits the use of one ounce of the substance by everyone aged 21.

The act contains strict directives regarding taxation: a 12% tax will be imposed on organizations producing and supplying marijuana, while an extra 2% tax will be raised for cities hosting this business (Livio, 2018, para. 3). In the meantime, it provides details regarding the expungement process for individuals who were previously arrested for carrying or distributing one once of the weed or less.

Clearing the criminal records of individuals with minor offenses is not, however, the only aspect this act touches upon. The amended bill text (S2703 version, which still waits to be adopted) states that the cities must have a population of at least 120,000 people to host marijuana manufacturers (Corasaniti, 2018). Also, it presupposes the division of living areas into consumption and non-consumption zones; smoking in undesignated zones will lead to punishment by fine. About the mentioned requirements, only Elizabeth, Paterson, Newark, and Jersey City are eligible to give a start to the industry development. A peculiar fact about the bill is that it replaces the term “marijuana” with a more neutral “cannabis” emphasizing the product’s legality.

The governmental structures have calculated that the sales of cannabis would result in substantial benefits for the state. According to a recent survey, more than 4% of the local population uses cannabis on an ongoing basis (McKoy & Rosmarin, 2016). In a legalized system, the revenues from marijuana sales could exceed $1.2 billion on an annual scale (McKoy & Rosmarin, 2016). Experts, however, provide rough figures since one cannot predict the actual situation following the bill adoption. The transition from an illegal to legal market requires time; one would need to introduce an effective price regulatory model for people to cease buying from ‘dealers’ and start purchasing legally.

Legalization of Marijuana: Situation in the Other States

A close study of the issue in the neighboring states (Pennsylvania and New York) has shown that a relatively small number of residents support New Jersey’s program. McKoy and Rosmarin (2016) approximate that no more than 10% of cannabis consumers express the will to join New Jerseyans in marijuana legalization.

In the meantime, Michigan and Montana demonstrate a relatively higher interest in the program implementation. A notable fact about these states is that they have the highest number of female supporters compared to other US regions. According to the survey results provided by Fairman (2016), “two-thirds of participants are male, but sex differences may be decreasing over time” (p. 72). This occurrence can be related to the fact that the legalization of medical marijuana has been sharply discussed there since 2009, and New Jersey’s situation laid the foundation for the new phase of the debate.

To analyze the outcomes of legalization, one should redirect attention towards Colorado and Massachusetts, the states that experienced its beneficial impact. As Axelrod (2019) admits, legalized marijuana in the given states resulted in higher revenues from taxes and formed a favorable environment for a small business to emerge. The new industry has allowed the companies in Massachusetts to create an average of 19,000 workplaces, and nearly the same amount (18,000) in Colorado (Axelrod, 2019). About this fact, the District of Columbia and ten other states have already permitted to use of recreational cannabis. In addition, 23 states have adopted laws legalizing medical marijuana. Legalizing cannabis in New Jersey was only a matter of time.

Cons

As was mentioned earlier, making marijuana legal involves clearing criminal records of many individuals with minor offenses. Corasaniti (2018) stresses out that marijuana laws in the state have affected minorities. According to recent studies, African-American residents of New Jersey demonstrate a three-time higher probability to be arrested on drug offenses compared to the representatives of other races (Corasaniti, 2018).

There are opinions that legislators have developed a biased attitude towards racial minorities due to this fact, which tends to influence their decisions regarding the crime expungement. Activists openly express their concerns about this matter and join public meetings to be heard by the government (Corasaniti, 2018). The difficulty of tossing out the previous convictions has injected uncertainty into the minds of citizens and some of the lawmakers. Many people question the law’s practicability as they no longer believe in the fairness of a judicial system (Corasaniti, 2018).

Another complication is attributed to the fact that the legalization of cannabis does not relieve police officers of the need to control the situation around the drug. An officer must still be capable of recognizing whether a driver is impaired by marijuana or not.

Also, strict control over smokers requires one to constantly monitor non-smoking areas and punish the offenders. Considering this matter, a rearranged training program should be introduced for the police to maximize its efficiency in fighting future violations (Fairman, 2016). Also, the reform of both medical and pharmacy systems must be launched to guide clinicians in the matters of drug prescription (Fairman, 2016). One should know the symptoms, dosage, and possible side effects when addressing a cannabis treatment.

Pros

Marijuana legalization would be the source of a new income, which could be directed to fixing roads, creating parking zones, building recreational community centers, and so on. Analytics advise increasing taxes for the states that host marijuana businesses, such as Washington and Colorado, to raise millions of dollars in annual revenues (Axelrod, 2019). Marijuana legalization advocates trust in more efficient law enforcement and the criminal justice system, since police officers, judges, and prosecutors will have more time to focus on more severe criminal cases (Axelrod, 2019). In its turn, it will lead to a reduction in the inmate population of state prisons. It is also considered that marijuana legalization will rectify a profit surge for illegal drug dealers.

Advocates argue that with the legalization of marijuana, the industry would have a safer manufacturing system capable of tracking the quality of products supplied to consumers. They also believe that legalizing medical cannabis would benefit patients suffering from terminal or chronic illnesses (Sachs, McGlade, & Yurgelun-Todd, 2015). Medical workers support this claim stating that marijuana assists with the treatment of such disorders as epilepsy, AIDS, anorexia, cancer, migraine, glaucoma, post-traumatic conditions, and more (Sachs et al., 2015). The American Academy of Neurology expressed their expert opinion too: “medical cannabis is ‘probably effective’ for some symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), including spasticity, central pain, spasms, and urinary dysfunction” (Sachs et al., 2015, p.735).

Conclusion

The legalization of cannabis in New Jersey has been accompanied by intense debate regarding the law’s applicability not only within the state, but in Montana, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan as well. The example of Colorado and Massachusetts shows that legalizing marijuana may have an overall positive impact on the states’ economy creating a favorable environment for the industry growth. While there are some complications related to the law implementation (minority protests, the need for medical reform), the changes promise to reduce crime and improve the lives of regular citizens.

References

Axelrod, T. (2019). New Jersey governor renews call for legalizing marijuana. Web.

Corasaniti, N. (2018). How a push to legalize pot in N.J. became a debate on race and fairness. The New York Times. Web.

Fairman, B. J. (2016). Trends in registered medical marijuana participation across 13 US states and District of Columbia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 159, 72-79.

Livio, S. K. (2018). Here’s how N.J is likely to legalize marijuana under new bill just unveiled by top democrats. Web.

McKoy, B., & Rosmarin, A. (2016). Marijuana legalization & taxation: Positive revenue implications for New Jersey. New Jersey Policy Perspective & American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, 1-14.

Sachs, J., McGlade, E., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2015). Safety and toxicology of cannabinoids. Neurotherapeutics, 12(4), 735-746.