Impact of Canada's cannabis legalisation on youth emergency department visits for cannabis‐related disorders and poisoning in Ontario and Alberta, 2015–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although there is momentum towards legalising adult recreational cannabis use worldwide, the extent of youth cannabis-related harm associated with legalisation is still uncertain. The current study aimed to assess whether the initial implementation of Canada's cannabis legalisation (via the Cannabis Act) on 17 October 2018 might be associated with youth harm, as assessed by emergency department visits for cannabis-related disorders/poisoning. METHODS: We used Ontario and Alberta, Canada emergency department data from 1 April 2015 to 31 December 2019. We identified all cannabis-related disorders/poisoning (ICD-10 CA: F12.X, T40.7) emergency department visits of youth (n = 13,615), defined as patients younger than the minimum legal cannabis sales age (18 years, Alberta; 19 years, Ontario). Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models were employed to assess the impact of legalisation on weekly counts of cannabis-related harms. RESULTS: The final SARIMA intervention (step) parameter indicated a post-legalisation increase of 14.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.0; 24.3, p < 0.01) weekly youth cannabis-related disorder/poisoning presentations to Ontario/Alberta emergency department settings, equivalent to an increase of 20.0% (95% CI 6.2%; 33.9%). There was no evidence of associations between cannabis legalisation and comparison series of youth alcohol, opioid or appendicitis emergency department episodes. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our findings require replication and extension but are consistent with the possibility that the implementation of the Cannabis Act was associated with an increase in youth cannabis-related presentations to Ontario/Alberta emergency departments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".