Changing Events and Altitudes on Cannabis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Editor, We have keenly considered implications of the article by Khadanga et al.[1] published in this journal’s June edition, against the background of changing events and attitudes on cannabis. News reports on India’s first Cannabis Research Project follow hot on the heels of this article, describing the collaboration of CSIR-Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu, with medical cannabis research company IndusCann (Toronto, Canada) aimed at developing therapeutics for neuropathies and cancer among others.[2] Soon, Himachal Pradesh became the third state to legalize cannabis cultivation, bringing the clandestine but widespread “weed haven” reputation to “legal light” in India.[3] The subject of undue restrictions on research of cannabis owing to its unscientific classification as a Schedule I drug deserves a separate discussion. However, we call attention to Gendy et al.’s[4] survey aimed at discriminating the prevalence of cannabis use disorder (CUD) between cohorts using cannabis for medical purposes versus those using it for recreational purposes also. Adopting a standard questionnaire-based method of classifying patients admitted to an addiction medicine service in Ontario, the group discovered a staggering 23.1% difference in the prevalence of dual-use patients found fitting the criteria for CUD compared to medical-use-only patients, with concurrently high measures of CUD severity. Khadanga et al.’s[1] report share some resemblance with the above Canadian paper in ways including participant selection, use of psychiatric evaluation methods, and even the period of study (2019). It nevertheless stands out by choosing to study caregiver burden on partners rather than the health of actual patients of substance use disorder. It is already a concern to see almost 12% of participants in this study reporting cannabis use in a country that has not yet legalized it. A number of reviews have found an increase in cannabis prevalence post-legalization, though there exist others that found neutral results.[5] A news article on the Columbia University’s Department of Psychiatry website sought comments from the lead author of a study, who expressed surprise at finding how adversely cannabis affects teenagers who do not even fall in the criteria of CUD.[6] This study, which compared the health effects of cannabis on CUD-positive and CUD-negative teenagers, hints at legalization affecting the change in the perception of cannabis as benign.[7] We wish to add that misinformation regarding the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids (not cannabis) is an equally important factor, both intrinsically and due to its potential for contributing to commercialization of cannabis. Does a solution exist? Unlike Canada and the United States, India certainly does not seem to be down the path of treating cannabis on the same level as intoxicants and narcotics. But neither can one genuinely hope for an early paradigm shift? Instead, it regards the latter to be as much of a malpractice as cannabis or opioids. Undoubtedly, research facilitation for plant-derived cannabinoids having therapeutic value is a must. But the essential task of revamping education and public awareness on the reality of cannabis goes hand in glove with development and promotion of medicines derived from the plant, and all these need to be acted upon together. Data availability statement Not Applicable. Author’s contribution RM: Design, literature search, manuscript preparation; JB: Manuscript review, guidance; ST: Manuscript review, guidance; PKK: Concept design, literature search, manuscript editing/review, guidance, correspondence. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».