Considerable recent attention has focused on how harmful or problematic cannabis use is defined and understood in the literature and put to use in clinical practice. The aim of the current study is to review conceptual and measurement shortcomings in the identification of problematic cannabis use, drawing on the WHO ASSIST instrument for specific examples. Three issues with the current approach are debated and discussed: (1) the identification of problematic cannabis use disproportionately relies on measures of the frequency of cannabis consumption rather than the harms experienced; (2) the quantity consumed on a typical day is not considered when assessing problematic use, and (3) screening tools for problematic use employ a ‘one-size-fits-all approach' and fail to reflect on the drug use context (networks and environment). Our commentary tackles each issue, with a review of relevant literature coupled with analyses of two Canadian data sources - a representative sample of the Canadian adult population and a smaller sample of adult, regular, long-term cannabis users from four Canadian cities - to further articulate each point. This article concludes with a discussion of appropriate treatment interventions and approaches to reduce cannabis-related harms, and offers suggested changes to improve the measurement of problematic cannabis use.

1.
Temple EC, Brown RF, Hine DW: The ‘grass ceiling': limitations in the literature hinder our understanding of cannabis use and its consequences. Addiction 2011;106:238-244.
2.
Copeland J: The glass ceiling on evidence of cannabis related harms - flawed or just false? Addiction 2011;106:249-250.
3.
Hammersley R: Meta-analysis is no substitute for theory. Addiction 2011;106:247-248.
4.
Patton GC: Moving beyond the grass ceiling. Addiction 2011;106:246-247.
5.
Andreasson S: Is there an epidemiological paradox for illicit drugs? Addiction 2011;106:248-249.
6.
Earleywine M: The elephant in the room with the ‘grass ceiling'. Addiction 2011;106:245-246.
7.
Davis CG, Thomas G, Jesseman R, Mazan R: Drawing the line on risky use of cannabis: assessing problematic use with the ASSIST. Addict Res Theory 2009;17:322-332.
8.
Thake J, Davis CG: Assessing problematic cannabis use. Addict Res Theory 2011;19:448-458.
9.
Zeisser C, Thompson K, Stockwell T, Duff C, Chow C, Vallance K, et al: A ‘standard joint'? The role of quantity in predicting cannabis-related problems. Addict Res Theory 2012;20:83-92.
10.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: World Drug Report 2009. New York, United Nations, 2009.
11.
Room R, Fischer B, Hall W, Lenton S, Reuter P: The Global Cannabis Commission Report: Cannabis Policy - Moving beyond Stalemate. Oxford, The Beckley Foundation, 2008.
12.
Fischer B, Jeffries V, Hall W, Room R, Goldner E, Rehm J: Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): a narrative review of evidence and recommendations. Can J Public Health 2011;102:324-327.
13.
Hathaway AD: Cannabis users' informal rules for managing stigma and risk. Deviant Behav 2004;25:559-577.
14.
Hathaway AD: Marijuana and lifestyle: exploring tolerable deviance. Deviant Behav 1997;18:213-232.
15.
Reilly D, Didcott P, Swift W, Hall W: Long-term cannabis use: characteristics of users in an Australian rural area. Addiction 1998;93:837-846.
16.
Calabria B, Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M: Does cannabis use increase the risk of death? Systematic review of epidemiological evidence on adverse effects of cannabis use. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29:1-13.
17.
Hall W, Solowij N: Adverse effects of cannabis. Lancet 1998;352:1611-1616.
18.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Swain-Campbell N: Cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence and young adulthood. Addiction 2002;97:1123-1135.
19.
Patton GC, Coffey C, Carlin JB, Degenhardt L, Lynskey M, Hall W: Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study. BMJ 2002;325:1195-1198.
20.
Hall W, Degenhardt L: Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet 2009;374:1383-1391.
21.
Asbridge M, Hayden J, Cartwright J: Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: a systematic review of observational studies. BMJ 2012;344:e536.
22.
Looby A, Earleywine M: Negative consequences associated with dependence in daily cannabis users. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2007;2:1-7.
23.
WHO ASSIST Working Group: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST): development, reliability and feasibility. Addiction 2002;97:1183-1194.
24.
Soellner R: Dependence on cannabis - an ever lasting issue. Subst Use Misuse 2005:40:857-867.
25.
Agrawal A, Lynskey MT: Does gender contribute to heterogeneity in criteria for cannabis abuse and dependence? Results from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007;88:300-307.
26.
Erickson PG, Hathaway AD: Normalization and harm reduction: research avenues and policy agendas. Int J Drug Policy 2010;21:137-139.
27.
Room R, Reuter P: How well do international drug conventions protect public health? Lancet 2012;379:84-91.
28.
Gossop M, Darke S, Griffiths P, Hando J, Powis B, Hall W, et al: The Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS): psychometric properties of the SDS in English and Australian samples of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine users. Addiction 1995;90:607-614.
29.
Adamson SJ, Sellman JD: A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) in an alcohol dependent clinical sample. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003;22:309-315.
30.
Legleye S, Karila L, Beck F, Reynaud M: Validation of the CAST, a general population Cannabis Abuse Screening Test. J Subst Use 2007;12:233-242.
31.
Legleye S, Kraus L, Piontek D, Phan O, Jouanne C: Validation of the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test in a sample of cannabis inpatients. Eur Addict Res 2012;18:193-200.
32.
Humeniuk RE, Ali RA, Babor TF, Farrell M, Formigoni ML, Jittiwutikarn J, et al: Validation of the Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Addiction 2008;103:1039-1047.
33.
Humeniuk R, Ali R: Validation of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and pilot brief intervention (electronic resource): a technical report of phase II findings of the WHO ASSIST Project. Geneva, WHO Press, 2006.
34.
Degenhardt L, Lynskey M, Coffey C, Patton G: ‘Diagnostic orphans' among young adult cannabis users: persons who report dependence symptoms but do not meet diagnostic criteria. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;67:205-212.
35.
Earleywine M: Understanding Marijuana Use: a New Look at the Scientific Evidence. New York, Oxford University Press, 2002.
36.
Hathaway A, MacDonald S, Erickson PG: Reprioritizing dependence and abuse: a comparison of cannabis clients in treatment with a non-treatment sample of users. Addict Res Theory 2008;16:495-502.
37.
Chen C-Y, Anthony JC: Possible age-associated bias in reporting of clinical features of drug dependence: epidemiological evidence on adolescent-onset marijuana use. Addiction 2003;98:71-82.
38.
Cunningham JA, Van Mierlo T: The Check Your Cannabis Screener: a new online personalized feedback tool. Open Med Inform J 2009;3:27.
39.
Stea JN, Hodgins DC, Lambert MJ: Relations between delay discounting and low to moderate gambling, cannabis, and alcohol problems among university students. Behav Processes 2011;88:202-205.
40.
Humeniuk RE: The Effectiveness of a Brief Intervention for Illicit Drugs Linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in Primary Health Care Settings: a Technical Report of Phase III Findings of the WHO ASSIST Randomized Controlled Trial. Geneva, WHO Press, 2008.
41.
Humeniuk RE, Henry-Edwards SM, Ali RL, Monteiro M, Poznyak V: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST): Manual for Use in Primary Care. Geneva, WHO Press, 2010.
42.
Humeniuk RE, Henry-Edwards SM, Ali RL, Monteiro M, Poznyak V: Brief Intervention: the ASSIST-Linked Brief Intervention for Hazardous and Harmful Substance Use: Manual for Use in Primary Care. Geneva, WHO Press, 2010.
43.
Carter CI, MacPherson D: Getting to Tomorrow: a Report on Canadian Drug Policy. Vancouver, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, 2013. http://www.drugpolicy.ca/progress/getting-to-tomorrow (accessed June 10, 2013).
44.
Pugh T, Netherland J, Finkelstein R, Frederique K, Meeks SM, Sayegh G: Blueprint for a Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug Policy. New York, New York Academy of Medicine, Drug Policy Alliance, 2013.
45.
Thomas G, Flight J, Richard K, Racine S: Toward a Policy-Relevant Typology of Cannabis Use for Canada. Ottawa, CCSA, 2006.
46.
Beck F, Legleye S: Measuring cannabis-related problems and dependence at the population level; in Sznitman S, Olsson B, Room R (eds): A Cannabis Reader: Global Issues and Local Experiences: Perspectives on Cannabis Controversies, Treatment and Regulation in Europe. Luxembourg, EMCDDA, 2008, vol 2.
47.
Bashford J, Flett R, Copeland J: The Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT): development, reliability, concurrent and predictive validity among adolescents and adults. Addiction 2010;105:615-625.
48.
Health Canada: Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS). Ottawa, Health Canada, 2010.
49.
Hathaway A, Hyshka E, Erickson P, Asbridge M, Brochu S, Cousineau MM, et al: Whither RDS? An investigation of respondent driven sampling as a method of recruiting mainstream marijuana users. Harm Reduct J 2010;7:15.
50.
Heckathorn DD: Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl 2002;49:11-34.
51.
Hyshka E, Clark S, Lambert L, Plante E, Walker A: Hiding in plain sight: trouble and triumph recruiting mainstream cannabis users in 4 Canadian cities; in G. Szarykcz (ed): In Troubled Waters: Navigating through the Unexpected Challenges and Dilemmas of Social Research. Amherst, Cambria Press, 2010.
52.
Bruun K, Edwards G, Lumio M, Mäkelä K, Pan L, Popham RE, et al: Alcohol Control Policies in Public Health Perspective. Helsinki, Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies, 1975.
53.
English DR, Holman CDJ, Milne E, Winter MJ, Hulse GK, Codde G, et al: The Quantification of Drug-Caused Morbidity and Mortality in Australia. Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1995.
54.
Rehm J, Room R, Graham K, Monteiro M, Gmel G, Sempos CT: The relationship of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking to burden of disease: an overview. Addiction 2003;98:1209-1228.
55.
Maxwell MA: Drinking behavior in the state of Washington. Q J Stud Alcohol 1952;13:219-239.
56.
Straus R, Bacon SD: Drinking in College. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1953.
57.
Rehm J: Measuring quantity, frequency, and volume of drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998;22:4s-14s.
58.
Edwards G, Anderson P, Babor T, Casswell S, Ferrence R, Giesbrecht N, et al (eds): Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. New York, Oxford University Press, 1994.
59.
Rehm J, Ashley MJ, Room R, Single E, Bondy S, Ferrence R, et al: On the emerging paradigm of drinking patterns and their social and health consequences. Addiction 1996;91:1615-1621.
60.
Chen K, Kandel D, Davies M: Relationships between frequency and quantity of marijuana use and last year proxy dependence among adolescents and adults in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 1997;46:53-67.
61.
Grant BF, Pickering R: The relationship between cannabis use and DSM-IV cannabis abuse and dependence: results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. J Subst Abuse 1998;10:255-264.
62.
Stephens RS, Babor TF, Kadden R, Miller M: The Marijuana Treatment Project: rationale, design and participant characteristics. Addiction 2002;97(suppl 1):109-124.
63.
Walden N, Earleywine M: How high: quantity as a predictor of cannabis-related problems. Harm Reduct J 2008;5:20-27.
64.
Kalant H: Smoked marijuana as medicine: not much future. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;83:517-519.
65.
Degenhardt L, Hall W: Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease. Lancet 2012;379:55-70.
66.
Rehm J, Ashley MJ, Dubois G: Alcohol and health: individual and population perspectives. Addiction 1997;92:S109-S115.
67.
Rehm J, Gmel G: Aggregating dimensions of alcohol consumption to predict medical and social consequences. J Subst Abuse 2000;12:155-168.
68.
Dawson D: Methodological issues in measuring alcohol use. Alcohol Res Health 2003;27:79-86.
69.
Dawson DA: Measuring alcohol consumption: limitations and prospects for improvement. Addiction 1998;93:965-968.
70.
Stockwell T, Daly A, Phillips M, Masters L, Midford R, Gahegan M, et al: Total versus hazardous per capita consumption as predictors of acute and chronic alcohol-related harm. Contemp Drug Probl 1996;23:441-464.
71.
Duff C: Towards a theory of drug use contexts: space, embodiment and practice. Addict Res Theory 2007;15:503-519.
72.
Moore D: Opening up the cul-de-sac of youth drug studies: a contribution to the construction of some alternative truths. Contemp Drug Probl 2002;29:13-64.
73.
Moore D, Dietze P: Enabling environments and the reduction of drug-related harm: re-framing Australian policy and practice. Drug Alcohol Rev 2005;24:275-284.
74.
Duff C: The importance of culture and context: rethinking risk and risk management in young drug using populations. Health Risk Soc 2003;5:284-299.
75.
DeCorte T: Blinding ourselves with science: the chronic infections of our thinking on psychoactive substances; in Hunt G, Milhet M, Bergeron H (eds): Drugs and Culture: Knowledge, Consumption and Policy. Burlington, Ashgate, 2011.
76.
Parker H: Normalization as barometer: recreational drug use and the consumption of leisure by young Britons. Addict Res Theory 2005;13:205-215.
77.
Zinberg N: Drug, Set, and Setting: the Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. New York, Vail-Ballou Press, 1984.
78.
Rhodes T: The ‘risk environment': a framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. Int J Drug Policy 2002;13:85-94.
79.
Waldorf D, Reinarman C, Murphy S: Cocaine changes: the experience of using and quitting. Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1991.
80.
Duff C, Asbridge M, Brochu S, Cousineau M-M, Hathaway AD, Marsh D, et al: A Canadian perspective on cannabis normalization among adults. Addict Res Theory 2001, DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2011.618957.
81.
Brochu S, Duff C, Asbridge M, Erickson P: ‘There's what's on paper and then there's what happens, out on the sidewalk': cannabis users' knowledge and opinions of Canadian drug laws. J Drug Issues 2011;41:96-116.
82.
Ream G, Johnson BD, Dunlap E, Benoit E: The role of marijuana use etiquette in avoiding targeted police enforcement. Drugs (Abingdon Engl) 2010;17:689-706.
83.
Pennay A, Moore D: Exploring the micro-politics of normalization: narratives of pleasure, self-control and desire in a sample of young Australian ‘party drug' users. Addict Res Theory 2010;18:557-571.
84.
Smith N: High potency cannabis: the forgotten variable. Addiction 2005;100:1558-1560.
85.
King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P: Cannabis potency in Europe. Addiction 2005;100:884-886.
86.
van der Pol P, Liebregts N, de Graaf R, Korf DJ, van den Brink W, van Laar M: Validation of self-reported cannabis dose and potency: an ecological study. Addiction 2013;108:1801-1808.
87.
Potter DJ, Clark P, Brown MB: Potency of Δ9-THC and other cannabinoids in cannabis in England in 2005: implications for psychoactivity and pharmacology. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:90-94.
88.
McLaren J, Swift W, Dillon P, Allsop S: Cannabis potency and contamination: a review of the literature. Addiction 2008;103:1100-1109.
89.
Burgdorf JR, Kilmer B, Pacula RL: Heterogeneity in the composition of marijuana seized in California. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011;117:59-61.
90.
Baum F: The New Public Health. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.