ArticleJournal of cannabis research2025
Medicinal and combined medicinal/recreational cannabis use in California following the passage of Proposition 64.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016, reshaped cannabis use in California. This study explores the use patterns of people who use cannabis for medicinal-only and combined medicinal and recreational use after implementation of Proposition 64.
methodsA quantitative, population-based online questionnaire included 4,020 current cannabis users, 523 former users, and 635 non-users. This analysis focuses on participants who self-identified as using cannabis for medicinal-only (n = 711) or both medicinal and recreational (M + R, n = 1719) purposes.
resultsSixty one percent of current cannabis users report medicinal use. Medicinal-only users were more likely to be female (OR 1.6, p < 0.001), have kids in household (OR 1.5, p < 0.001), and began cannabis use later (mean age 34 vs. 23, p < 0.001). Pain relief was the predominant reason for use, followed by sleep, anxiety, and stress relief. While both groups reported positive effects, M + R users experienced more negative side effects. Fewer medicinal-only users cited a desire to "feel the high," (42% vs. 75% M + R, p < 0.001). Medicinal-only users felt less comfortable discussing cannabis with primary care providers than M + R users (75% vs 83%, p < 0.01). All users were more likely to seek information online (44-57%) or from friends/family (47-52%) than health professionals (26-27%). Dispensaries were the main cannabis source for both medicinal groups (72% M vs. 84% M + R, p < 0.01), with licensure being very or extremely important (72% M, 66% M + R, p < 0.01). Monthly spending for medicinal-only users was lower ($127 vs. $186 for M + R, p < 0.001), and they were more likely than M + R users to wait before feeling safe to drive after using cannabis.
conclusionPeople who use medicinal cannabis alone vary in key areas from people who use cannabis for both medicinal and recreational reasons. The need for better patient-provider relationships and clinically informed guidance is evident to support medicinal cannabis users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.