Observations of the role of science in the United States medical cannabis state policies: Lessons learnt |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University,270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup WA 6027, Australia;2. Department of Psychological Science, Northern Kentucky University,1 Nunn Drive, MEP 355, Highland Heights, KY 41099, United States;1. CHIP, Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;2. Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain;3. Cermes3, Inserm U988/CNRS UMR 8211, EHESS, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France;4. Clinic for Infectious Diseases and Febrile Illnesses, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia;5. European Liver Patients’ Association, Brussels, Belgium;6. Correlation Network, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;7. European AIDS Treatment Group, Brussels, Belgium;8. Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom;1. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, 7101 Avenue du Parc, Montréal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada;2. Research Centre, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 Saint-Denis, Montréal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada;3. School of Population Health, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia;4. Department of Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, 29 Regent Street, Fitzroy, VIC 3065, Australia;5. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada;6. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada;7. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Côte-des-Neiges, Montréal, QC H3S 1Z1, Canada;1. New York University College of Global Public Health, New York, NY, USA;2. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, New York University, New York, NY, USA;3. Center for Health, Identity, Behavior, and Prevention Studies, New York University, New York, NY, USA;4. Ukrainian Institute on Public Health Policy, Kiev, Ukraine;5. National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Kiev, Ukraine;6. Alliance for Public Health (Formerly ICF International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Ukraine), Kiev, Ukraine;7. SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Brooklyn, NY, USA;1. School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Health Sciences Centre, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;2. British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St. Paul’s Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada;3. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada;1. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany;2. Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Service, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Ernest Borges Marg, Parel, Mumbai, 400012, India;3. Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany;4. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;5. Department of Internal Medicine I, Christian-Albrechts-University & UKSH Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundClinical trials have shown cannabis to be effective in the treatment of some medical conditions and there is mounting public and political pressure to enact laws enabling the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. To date, 28 United States (U.S.) states and the District of Columbia have enacted medical cannabis laws. This study sought to identify the main issues pertaining to the development of medical cannabis laws in the U.S, including the role of scientific evidence.MethodsData were collected from three groups of participants: government officials, lobbyists and medical professionals involved in the medical cannabis debate in five selected states in the U.S.; researchers from the same five states conducting funded research in the alcohol and other drugs field; and members of the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsSix major themes emerged in relation to the factors influencing policy: scientific evidence plays a limited role in the development of policy; the available research is limited and mixed; there is a need for clearer communication and active dissemination of evidence to policy makers; researchers need to consider what research is likely to impact on policy; scientific evidence is not a major factor in policy development; and there is a need to consider evidence within a political context.ConclusionResearchers need to be aware of the political context in which medical cannabis laws are or are not enacted and consider ways in which research findings can achieve a higher profile within this context. |
| |
| Keywords: | Medical cannabis Medical cannabis policy United States Role of science |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
