rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

Cannabis use among methadone patients increased only in Las Vegas (where legal) and predicted worse treatment retention in both clinics

Retrospective CohortModerate evidence
The takeaway

Over 20+ years, cannabis use at admission to methadone treatment increased in Las Vegas (where cannabis was legalized) but not in Tel Aviv, and cannabis use predicted shorter treatment retention in both settings.

Addiction medicine specialists, methadone clinic administrators, and policymakers evaluating cannabis legalization effects on substance abuse treatment.

Cannabis use at methadone admission increased in legalized Las Vegas but not Tel Aviv

What the researchers found

The Las Vegas clinic (1,724 patients) had lower one-year retention than Tel Aviv (1,014 patients): 46.4% vs. 74.4%. Cannabis and benzodiazepine misuse at admission increased in Las Vegas but not Tel Aviv. Cannabis at admission predicted shorter retention in Las Vegas, and cannabis after one year predicted shorter retention in Tel Aviv. Age at admission and retention rates decreased in Las Vegas but increased in Tel Aviv.

Why it matters

Cannabis legalization may increase cannabis use among opioid-dependent individuals in treatment, and this study suggests that cannabis use is associated with worse methadone treatment outcomes regardless of the legal context.

The numbers in context

1,724 Las Vegas patients, 1,014 Tel Aviv patients. One-year retention: 46.4% LV vs. 74.4% TA. Cannabis at admission increased in LV only. Cannabis predicted shorter retention in both clinics (different time points).

How the study worked

Retrospective comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes at two methadone maintenance treatment clinics over 20 years (Las Vegas) and 27 years (Tel Aviv). Admission characteristics, urine drug screens at months 1 and 13, and cumulative retention analyzed by year of admission.

What this study cannot tell us

Retrospective chart review with many potential confounders. Two clinics in very different cultural and healthcare contexts. Cannabis use determined by urine screens and charts, not standardized assessment. The clinics differed in many ways beyond cannabis legality.

How to read the evidence

Long-term two-site comparison with objective urine data, but many confounders and fundamental differences between clinics and countries.

When this study was published

2021 study analyzing 20-27 years of data. One of few studies comparing methadone outcomes across jurisdictions with different cannabis laws.

The bigger picture

As cannabis legalization expands, its impact on addiction treatment outcomes for other substances deserves attention. This cross-national comparison suggests legalization may increase cannabis use in vulnerable populations.

Questions still open

  • Would cannabis-specific interventions within methadone programs improve retention? Does the type or frequency of cannabis use matter for treatment outcomes? Could differences in healthcare systems explain some retention differences?

Common questions

Did cannabis legalization hurt methadone treatment outcomes?
Cannabis use at admission increased only in Las Vegas (where legal), and cannabis use predicted shorter treatment retention. However, many other factors differed between the clinics, so a direct causal link to legalization cannot be established.
Why was retention so different between the clinics?
Las Vegas had 46.4% one-year retention versus 74.4% in Tel Aviv. Multiple factors likely contribute, including different healthcare systems, patient populations, and treatment approaches, not just cannabis policies.

Read the original research

Trend differences over 20 years between two methadone maintenance clinics, one with and one without cannabis legalization.

Journal of addictive diseases, 39(2), 226-233

Citation

Adelson, Miriam; Smith, Dinita; Peles, Einat. (2021). Trend differences over 20 years between two methadone maintenance clinics, one with and one without cannabis legalization.. Journal of addictive diseases, 39(2), 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2020.1848248

Explore the wider topic