The Relationship Between Tobacco and Cannabis Use: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on the prevalence and health implications of tobacco and cannabis use, aiming to reduce their use, especially among youth, is a sound objective at both the individual and public health level. A proper understanding of the relationships between tobacco and cannabis use may help to achieve this goal. OBJECTIVES: To review the relationships between tobacco and cannabis use. METHODS: A selective review of the literature. RESULTS: We present an overview of the motivations for tobacco and cannabis use, and their perceived harmfulness. The article then reviews the gateway theory, reverse gateway theory, route of administration theory, and common liability theory. We describe the link between co-use and dependence symptoms, and the substitution phenomenon between tobacco and cannabis use. Three forms of simultaneous use-mulling, blunt smoking, and chasing-and their impacts are explained. We summarize the impact of tobacco use on cannabis (and vice versa) treatment outcomes, and, finally, review new treatments that simultaneously target tobacco and cannabis dependence. Most of the literature reviewed here relates to substance use among adolescents and young adults. CONCLUSIONS: The use of tobacco and cannabis-two of the most widely used substances around the world-are strongly intertwined in several respects. Both health professionals and researchers should have well-informed views on this issue to better evaluate, understand, inform, and provide care to their patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it