rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

Cannabis disrupted brain network connectivity equally in teens and adults, and adding CBD did not make it safer

Clinical TrialStrong evidence
The takeaway

Vaporized cannabis reduced resting-state brain network connectivity across five major networks in both adolescent and adult semi-regular users, with CBD not counteracting THC's effects and in some cases making disruption worse.

Neuroscientists studying cannabis effects on brain connectivity; clinicians and policymakers evaluating CBD-containing cannabis product safety claims.

CBD did not counteract THC brain effects; in some cases made them worse

What the researchers found

Cannabis caused significant reductions in within-network connectivity in the default mode, executive control, salience, hippocampal, and limbic striatal networks compared to placebo. CBD co-administration did not attenuate THC's effects and further reduced connectivity in some networks. Despite age-related baseline differences, there were no interactions between age group and cannabis treatment in any network.

Why it matters

Two common assumptions are challenged: that adolescent brains are more vulnerable to acute cannabis effects than adult brains, and that CBD can mitigate THC's disruption of brain function. Neither held up in this controlled study.

The numbers in context

Executive control network: F[2,88]=18.62, P<0.001, effect size 0.123. Limbic striatal: F[2,88]=16.19, P<0.001, effect size 0.102. Hippocampal: F[2,88]=14.65, P<0.001, effect size 0.087. Salience: F[2,88]=12.12, P<0.001, effect size 0.076. Default mode: F[2,88]=3.97, P=0.022, effect size 0.018. No age-by-treatment interactions in any network.

How the study worked

Double-blind, placebo-controlled fMRI study with vaporized cannabis (placebo, THC 8mg/75kg, THC+CBD 8mg THC + 24mg CBD per 75kg). 22 adolescents (16-17) and 24 young adults (26-29), all semi-regular cannabis users (0.5-3 days/week), matched for use frequency.

What this study cannot tell us

Semi-regular users only; findings may differ in cannabis-naive individuals or heavy users. Small sample sizes per group. Single acute dose; chronic effects may differ. Resting-state connectivity does not necessarily predict functional outcomes. Specific THC:CBD ratio tested may not generalize.

How to read the evidence

Double-blind placebo-controlled design with objective fMRI outcomes, though small sample sizes limit statistical power for interaction effects.

When this study was published

2024 study

The bigger picture

The finding that CBD does not counteract and may potentiate THC's brain effects directly challenges marketing of high-CBD cannabis products as "safer." If replicated, this could reshape harm reduction messaging around cannabis product selection.

Questions still open

  • Why did CBD potentiate rather than counteract THC in some networks? Would different THC:CBD ratios produce different results?

Common questions

Does this mean CBD is harmful?
Not necessarily. The study tested CBD combined with THC in vaporized cannabis, not CBD alone. The finding is specifically that CBD did not make THC safer in terms of brain connectivity disruption, not that CBD itself is harmful.
Are teen brains more affected by cannabis than adult brains?
In this study, the acute effects on brain connectivity were similar in teens and adults. However, this does not address whether repeated exposure during adolescence has different long-term consequences than adult use.

Read the original research

Acute effects of different types of cannabis on young adult and adolescent resting-state brain networks.

Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 49(10), 1640-1651

Citation

Ertl, Natalie; Freeman, Tom P; Mokrysz, Claire; Ofori, Shelan; Borissova, Anna; Petrilli, Kat; Curran, H Valerie; Lawn, Will; Wall, Matthew B. (2024). Acute effects of different types of cannabis on young adult and adolescent resting-state brain networks.. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 49(10), 1640-1651. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-024-01891-6

Explore the wider topic