Department of Psychiatry, BKL Walawalkar Rural Medical College, Maharashtra, India.
Educación de la Afectividad y Sexualidad Humana, Instituto Cultura y Sociedad, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2022 Jul 14;44(Suppl 1):e20210263. doi: 10.47626/2237-6089-2021-0263.
Varying public views on cannabis use across countries may explain the variation in the prevalence of use, policies, and research in individual countries, and global regulation of cannabis. This paper aims to describe the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries.
PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g., "Iran"), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as "cannabis," "marijuana," "hashish," "bhang "dual diagnosis," "use," "addiction," "prevalence," "co-morbidity," "substance use disorder," "legalization" or "policy" (in English and non-English languages). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string for studies' titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English languages (using countries national languages) to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries.
The main findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and variation in intervention strategies across the countries reviewed. European countries dominate the cannabis research output indexed on PubMed, in contrast to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran, and Nepal).
Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.
不同国家对大麻使用的公众看法不同，这可能解释了个别国家大麻使用、政策和研究的差异，以及大麻的全球监管。本文旨在描述 16 个国家的大麻使用、政策和研究现状。
在 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 上搜索了 2010 年至 2020 年发表的研究。使用感兴趣的国家的相关术语（例如“伊朗”）以及相关的预定义关键词（如“大麻”、“大麻”、“哈希什”、“班加”、“双重诊断”、“使用”、“成瘾”、“流行率”、“共病”、“物质使用障碍”、“合法化”或“政策”）作为搜索词进行搜索。这些关键词以多种组合形式用于研究标题和摘要的搜索。还以英语和非英语（使用国家的本国语言）搜索了各国政府和国际组织的官方网站，以确定这些国家的大麻使用、政策和研究现状。
主要发现是大麻使用的报告不一致且具有异质性，政策（例如合法化）存在差异，以及审查的国家之间的干预策略存在差异。欧洲国家在 PubMed 上索引的大麻研究产出占主导地位，而亚洲国家（泰国、马来西亚、印度、伊朗和尼泊尔）则不然。
尽管全球大麻监管正在进行中，但各国在政策和流行病学方面存在的异质性可能会不成比例且不可预测地增加大麻使用障碍的负担。迫切需要制定全球战略来解决这些跨国障碍，以改善大麻使用和相关障碍的早期发现、预防和干预。
