Changes in modes of cannabis consumption pre- and post-legalization and their correlates among adults in Ontario, Canada: 2017–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite an increase in the varieties of cannabis products available for consumption, limited evidence is available about the patterns of cannabis consumption methods before and after legalization.Objectives: To examine the changes in modes of cannabis use and their correlates among adults in Ontario, Canada both prior to and following cannabis legalization in 2018.Methods: Data were utilized from the 2017 to 2022 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health’s (CAMH) Monitor study, a repeated cross-sectional survey of adults 18 years of age and older (n = 2,665; 56% male). The surveys employed a regionally stratified sampling design using computer-assisted telephone interviews and web surveys. Multinomial regression was performed to examine different modes of cannabis use.Results: The exclusive use of cannabis through ingestion methods increased from 4.0% in 2017 to 16.6% in 2022 (p < .001). However, the exclusive use of inhalation-based cannabis decreased from 49.4% in 2017 to 25.5% in 2022 (p < .001). Relative to inhalation-based modes, adults were about five times more likely to use ingestion-based modes in 2020 [RRR = 4.65 (2.94–7.35)] and 2022 [RRR = 4.75 (2.99–7.55)] than in 2019, after accounting for sociodemographic factors.Conclusions: Ingestion-based cannabis use among adults increased fourfold between 2017 and 2022, a period during which recreational cannabis use was legalized in Canada. The increase was especially evident after the legalization of cannabis edibles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".