Synthetic cannabinoid and Salvia use linked to marijuana and ecstasy use in Hispanic samples | Research

The takeaway

In a predominantly Hispanic border community, about 9-10% reported ever using synthetic cannabinoids or Salvia, with current marijuana and ecstasy use being the strongest predictors.

Read this if you want to understand who uses synthetic cannabinoids and Salvia and what predicts their use.

Current marijuana use was the strongest predictor of synthetic cannabinoid use

What the researchers found

Across two studies at a U.S./Mexico border university and health clinic, researchers found that 9-10% of participants had ever used synthetic cannabinoids or Salvia divinorum. Being male and using multiple tobacco products were associated with use in the clinic sample.

Among college students, past 30-day marijuana use and past 30-day ecstasy use were the strongest predictors of lifetime synthetic cannabinoid and Salvia use. Current marijuana use emerged as a particularly consistent predictor across both studies.

Why it matters

This was among the first studies to examine synthetic cannabinoid use in a predominantly Hispanic population. The strong link to current marijuana use suggests these novel substances may be used as supplements to rather than replacements for cannabis.

The numbers in context

Study 1: 10% lifetime use of synthetic cannabinoids or Salvia (n=185). Study 2: 9% lifetime, 5% past-year, 3% past 30-day synthetic cannabinoid use (n=675). Past 30-day marijuana and ecstasy use were significant predictors.

How the study worked

Two cross-sectional studies: Study 1 included 185 participants (83% Hispanic) from a clinic and university on the U.S./Mexico border; Study 2 included 675 participants (89.1% Hispanic) from the same university. Logistic regression identified correlates of synthetic cannabinoid and Salvia use.

What this study cannot tell us

Cross-sectional convenience samples from a single border community. Predominantly Hispanic sample may not generalize to other populations. Self-reported data. Small prevalence means limited statistical power for some analyses.

How to read the evidence

Two cross-sectional convenience samples from a specific border community. Exploratory but limited in generalizability.

When this study was published

Published in 2014. The synthetic cannabinoid market has changed significantly since then.

The bigger picture

The finding that synthetic cannabinoid users were typically current marijuana users challenges the notion that synthetic products primarily attract people trying to avoid cannabis detection on drug tests. Instead, use may be more driven by curiosity or enhancement-seeking among existing drug users.

Questions still open

Are synthetic cannabinoid use patterns different in Hispanic populations compared to other groups? Do border community access patterns differ from inland communities? Has use changed since 2014 with increased scheduling of synthetic cannabinoids?

Common questions

Who uses synthetic cannabinoids?

In this predominantly Hispanic border community, about 9-10% had tried synthetic cannabinoids. Current marijuana users were significantly more likely to use them, suggesting these products often supplement rather than replace cannabis.

Is synthetic cannabinoid use just to avoid drug tests?

This study found that current marijuana users were the most likely to also use synthetic cannabinoids, suggesting avoidance of drug tests is not the primary motivation. Users appear to be polysubstance-curious.

Read the original research

Investigating correlates of synthetic marijuana and Salvia use in light and intermittent smokers and college students in a predominantly Hispanic sample.

Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 22(6), 524-9

View on PubMed ↗Publisher’s paper ↗

Citation

Gutierrez, Kevin M; Cooper, Theodore V. (2014). Investigating correlates of synthetic marijuana and Salvia use in light and intermittent smokers and college students in a predominantly Hispanic sample.. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 22(6), 524-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038014