rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

SUD Treatment Patients Mostly Smoke Cannabis Flower but THC Content Drives Their Product Choices

Cross SectionalModerate evidence
The takeaway

Among 472 adults in substance use disorder treatment, dried flower and smoked cannabis dominated use patterns, with THC content as the primary purchase motivator, though some chose CBD products for perceived medical benefits.

Addiction treatment professionals and cannabis users in recovery from other substance use disorders.

89% of current users smoked cannabis flower

What the researchers found

89% of current cannabis users smoked dried flower for non-medical purposes. Edibles were the second most common (53%), with 11% using high-potency products like dabs. Qualitative interviews revealed THC content was the primary driver of product choices, but perceived medical benefits and harm reduction motivated CBD product use. Convenience and familiarity also influenced decisions.

Why it matters

People in SUD treatment represent a high-risk population for cannabis-related harms. Understanding their product preferences and motivations can help clinicians have more informed conversations about cannabis use and tailor harm reduction advice.

The numbers in context

N = 472 survey, 22 interviews. Current users: 89% smoked flower (non-medical), 53% used edibles, 11% used dabs/concentrates. THC content was primary purchase motivator. CBD products chosen for perceived medical/harm-reduction benefits.

How the study worked

Mixed-methods study: online survey of 472 adults who self-reported accessing SUD treatment and lifetime cannabis use, plus in-depth interviews with 22 participants. Quantitative analysis described product characteristics; qualitative descriptive analysis explored reasons for product choices among current users.

What this study cannot tell us

Online survey may not reach all SUD treatment patients. Self-reported product use may be imprecise. The qualitative subset (22 participants) may not capture the full range of motivations. Cross-sectional design cannot track how product choices change over time.

How to read the evidence

Mixed-methods study with reasonable sample sizes for both survey and qualitative components. Moderate evidence for use patterns in this specific population.

When this study was published

Published in 2025.

The bigger picture

As cannabis product diversity explodes, understanding what draws high-risk users to specific products is essential. The finding that SUD treatment patients are attracted primarily to THC potency, while a subset seeks CBD for harm reduction, reflects the dual nature of cannabis in this population.

Questions still open

  • Would providing harm reduction guidance about product potency within SUD treatment improve outcomes? Are patients who gravitate toward CBD products at lower risk than those seeking high-THC products?

Common questions

Is cannabis use safe for people in addiction treatment?
This study describes patterns but does not determine safety. People in SUD treatment have higher rates of risky cannabis use. THC-seeking behavior may signal problematic patterns, while CBD-seeking may reflect harm reduction attempts.
Why are concentrates and dabs concerning?
Products like dabs deliver very high THC concentrations in a single dose. For people with substance use disorders, this rapid, intense effect may carry higher addiction and harm risks than lower-potency products.

Read the original research

Cannabis Use Characteristics and Reasons for Product Choices Among Patients Accessing Treatment for Substance Use Disorders: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.), 8(2), 67-84

Citation

Matheson, Justin; Saini, Harseerat; Haines-Saah, Rebecca; Sanches, Marcos; Sloan, Matthew E; Zaweel, Adam; Hassan, Ahmed; Buckley, Leslie; Porathl, Amy; MacKillop, James; Hendershot, Christian S; Kloiber, Stefan; Le Foll, Bernard. (2025). Cannabis Use Characteristics and Reasons for Product Choices Among Patients Accessing Treatment for Substance Use Disorders: A Mixed-Methods Study.. Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.), 8(2), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2025/000309

Explore the wider topic