4.4 Review

Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review

期刊

JAMA PSYCHIATRY
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 292-297

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3278

关键词

-

资金

  1. Forum Pharmaceuticals from the National Institute of Drug Abuse [R01 DA030992]
  2. Pfizer from the National Institute of Drug Abuse [R01 DA021245]
  3. National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) [DE-AC02-98CH10886]
  4. National Institute of Drug Abuse [R01 DA021576]
  5. United Kingdom Medical Research Council
  6. National Institute of Health Research
  7. British Medical Association
  8. United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Council
  9. United Kingdom Medical Research Council grant
  10. MRC [MR/K015524/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Medical Research Council [MR/K015524/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  12. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2014-18-010, CL-2015-18-005] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With a political debate about the potential risks and benefits of cannabis use as a backdrop, the wave of legalization and liberalization initiatives continues to spread. Four states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) and the District of Columbia have passed laws that legalized cannabis for recreational use by adults, and 23 others plus the District of Columbia now regulate cannabis use for medical purposes. These policy changes could trigger a broad range of unintended consequences, with profound and lasting implications for the health and social systems in our country. Cannabis use is emerging as one among many interacting factors that can affect brain development and mental function. To inform the political discourse with scientific evidence, the literature was reviewed to identify what is known and not known about the effects of cannabis use on human behavior, including cognition, motivation, and psychosis.

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