Co-Use, Simultaneous Use, and Mixing of Cannabis and Tobacco: A Cross-national Comparison of Canada and the US by Cannabis Administration Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Increasing cannabis legalization raises concerns that tobacco use, frequently used with cannabis, will also increase. This study investigated the association between legal status of cannabis in place of residence and prevalence of cannabis and tobacco co-use, simultaneous use, and mixing by comparing the prevalence among adults in Canada (prior to cannabis legalization) vs. adults in US states that had legalized recreational cannabis vs. US states that had not as of September 2018. Methods: Data were drawn from the 2018 International Cannabis Policy Study, conducted with respondents aged 16-65 in Canada and the US recruited from non-probability consumer panels. Differences in the prevalence of co-use, simultaneous use, and mixing between tobacco and different cannabis products were examined using logistic regression models by legal status of place of residence among past 12-month cannabis consumers (N=6744). Results: Co-use and simultaneous use in the past 12 months were most common among respondents in US legal states. Among cannabis consumers, co-use and simultaneous use were less common in US legal states, while mixing was less frequent in US states with both legal and illegal cannabis compared to Canada. Use of edibles was associated with lower odds of all three outcomes, while smoking dried herb or hash was associated with higher odds. Conclusions: The proportion of cannabis consumers who used tobacco was lower in legal jurisdictions despite higher prevalence of cannabis use. Edible use was inversely associated with co-use suggesting that edible use does not appear to be associated with increased tobacco use.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".