4.4 Review

Psychosocial sequelae of cannabis use and implications for policy: findings from the Christchurch Health and Development Study

期刊

SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 1317-1326

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-015-1070-x

关键词

Cannabis; Cannabis dependence; Education; Unemployment; Welfare dependence; Gateway theory; Psychosis

资金

  1. Health Research Council of New Zealand
  2. National Child Health Research Foundation
  3. Canterbury Medical Research Foundation
  4. New Zealand Lottery Grants Board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Christchurch Health and Development Study is a longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children who were born in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1977. This cohort has now been studied from birth to the age of 35. This article examines a series of findings from the CHDS that address a range of issues relating to the use of cannabis amongst the cohort. These issues include: (a) patterns of cannabis use and cannabis dependence; (b) linkages between cannabis use and adverse educational and economic outcomes; (c) cannabis and other illicit drug use; (d) cannabis and psychotic symptoms; (e) other CHDS findings related to cannabis; and (f) the consequences of cannabis use for adults using cannabis regularly. In general, the findings of the CHDS suggest that individuals who use cannabis regularly, or who begin using cannabis at earlier ages, are at increased risk of a range of adverse outcomes, including: lower levels of educational attainment; welfare dependence and unemployment; using other, more dangerous illicit drugs; and psychotic symptomatology. It should also be noted, however, that there is a substantial proportion of regular adult users who do not experience harmful consequences as a result of cannabis use. Collectively, these findings suggest that cannabis policy needs to be further developed and evaluated in order to find the best way to regulate a widely-used, and increasingly legal substance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据