Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rationale Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) and oral fluid devices are used to screen for driving impairment and roadside drug detection, respectively. SFST have been validated for alcohol, but their sensitivity to impairment induced by other drugs is relatively unknown. The sensitivity and specificity for Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of most oral fluid devices have been low. Objective This study assessed the effects of smoking cannabis with and without alcohol on SFST performance. Presence of THC in oral fluid was examined with two devices (Dräger Drug Test® 5000 and Securetec Drugwipe® 5). Methods Twenty heavy cannabis users (15 males and 5 females; mean age, 24.3 years) participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing percentage of impaired individuals on the SFST and the sensitivity of two oral fluid devices. Participants received alcohol doses or alcohol placebo in combination with 400 μg/kg body weight THC. We aimed to reach peak blood alcohol concentration values of 0.5 and 0.7 mg/mL. Results Cannabis was significantly related to performance on the one-leg stand ( p  = 0.037). Alcohol in combination with cannabis was significantly related to impairment on horizontal gaze nystagmus ( p  = 0.029). The Dräger Drug Test® 5000 demonstrated a high sensitivity for THC, whereas the sensitivity of the Securetec Drugwipe® 5 was low. Conclusions SFST were mildly sensitive to impairment from cannabis in heavy users. Lack of sensitivity might be attributed to tolerance and time of testing. SFST were sensitive to both doses of alcohol. The Dräger Drug Test® 5000 appears to be a promising tool for detecting THC in oral fluid as far as correct THC detection is concerned.

Fifty-three head hair specimens were collected from 38 males with a history of cannabis use documented by questionnaire, urinalysis and controlled, double blind administration of Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an institutional review board approved protocol. The subjects completed a questionnaire indicating daily cannabis use ( N = 18) or non-daily use, i.e. one to five cannabis cigarettes per week ( N = 20). Drug use was also documented by a positive cannabinoid urinalysis, a hair specimen was collected from each subject and they were admitted to a closed research unit. Additional hair specimens were collected following smoking of two 2.7% THC cigarettes ( N = 13) or multiple oral doses totaling 116 mg THC ( N = 2). Cannabinoid concentrations in all hair specimens were determined by ELISA and GCMSMS. Pre- and post-dose detection rates did not differ statistically, therefore, all 53 specimens were considered as one group for further comparisons. Nineteen specimens (36%) had no detectable THC or 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) at the GCMSMS limits of quantification (LOQ) of 1.0 and 0.1 pg/mg hair, respectively. Two specimens (3.8%) had measurable THC only, 14 (26%) THCCOOH only, and 18 (34%) both cannabinoids. Detection rates were significantly different ( p < 0.05, Fishers’ exact test) between daily cannabis users (85%) and non-daily users (52%). There was no difference in detection rates between African-American and Caucasian subjects ( p > 0.3, Fisher's exact test). For specimens with detectable cannabinoids, concentrations ranged from 3.4 to >100 pg THC/mg and 0.10 to 7.3 pg THCCOOH/mg hair. THC and THCCOOH concentrations were positively correlated ( r = 0.38, p < 0.01, Pearson's product moment correlation). Using an immunoassay cutoff concentration of 5 pg THC equiv./mg hair, 83% of specimens that screened positive were confirmed by GCMSMS at a cutoff concentration of 0.1 pg THCCOOH/mg hair.

Rationale Cannabis and alcohol are the most popular drugs amongst recreational users and most prevalent in injured and deceased drivers. The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are commonly used to establish impairment due to drugs and alcohol, but limited empirical evidence exists concerning the combined effects of these drugs on SFST performance. Methods The sample comprised 80 individuals (31 females; 49 males). Age ranged between 21 and 35 years (M = 26.5, SD = 5). Forty participants (15 females; 25 males) took part in the low alcohol condition (BAC, <0.05 %), and 40 participants (16 females; 24 males), took part in the high alcohol condition (BAC, >0.05 %). For each part of the study, two levels of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were administered (1.8 and 3 % THC) or a matching placebo cigarette (0 % THC) in combination with alcohol. Performance on the SFST was assessed 30 min post-dosing. Results A number of significant differences in SFST performance were identified with 28 % of the sample failing the test (when the head movement and jerks sign was included) when low alcohol and low THC were administered together. When a higher dose of alcohol was administered with a low dose of THC, 38 % of the sample failed the test, and 35 % also failed when the high dose of alcohol was combined with a higher dose of THC. Conclusions The current results highlight the limited ability of the SFST to identify drug consumption in the absence of any evidence of driving impairment or physiological indicators.

•Sativex® trial patients were drug tested using roadside oral fluid screening devices.•THC is detectable by the Cozart® DDS for at least 2h after dosage.•Confirmatory analysis will reveal elevated CBD levels in Sativex® patients.•Further study is required to exclude concurrent use of non-medicinal cannabis. Sativex® is an oromucosal spray used to treat spasticity in multiple sclerosis sufferers in some European countries, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. The drug has also recently been registered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia for treatment of multiple sclerosis. Sativex® contains high concentrations of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), with the former being the subject of random roadside drug tests across Australia to detect cannabis use. This pilot study aims to determine whether or not patients taking Sativex® will test positive to THC using these roadside screening tests. Detectable levels of THC, CBD and cannabinol (CBN) in their oral fluid were also confirmed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). The study was a double-blind, placebo controlled design. Oral fluid was tested prior to and immediately after dosing with either Sativex® or placebo at intervals up to 2h after the dose. Two Sativex® doses were studied. The low dose contained 5.4mg THC, the high dose 21.6mg THC. Results indicate that the primary screening test used in Australian roadside drug testing, the DrugWipe® II Twin, often gave a false negative response for THC, even with high concentrations present. However, secondary screening test, Cozart® DDS (used by police after a DrugWipe test gives a positive result), gave true positive results in all cases where patients were being treated with Sativex®. Confirmatory testing showed high concentrations of THC and CBD (>5356ng/mL THC and >3826ng/mL CBD) in the oral fluid shortly after dosing and also elevated concentrations of CBN. Levels dropped quickly but remained at detectable concentrations (>67.6ng/mL) two hours after drug administration. The average concentration ratio of THC/CBD across all positive samples was 1.10 (%RSD 19.9) reflecting the composition of the Sativex® spray. In conclusion, Sativex® users may test positive for THC by roadside drug testing within 2–3h of use. Confirmatory analysis can identify Sativex® treatment through use of THC/CBD ratios, however, these ratios would unlikely be sufficient to differentiate non-medicinal cannabis use from Sativex® use if both are taken concurrently.

As marijuana use becomes legal in some states, the dominant public opinion is that marijuana is a harmless source of mood alteration. Although the harms associated with marijuana use have not been well studied, enough information is available to cause concern. In light of the rapidly shifting landscape regarding the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes, patients may be more likely to ask physicians about its potential adverse and beneficial effects on health. The popular notion seems to be that marijuana is a harmless pleasure, access to which should not be regulated or considered illegal. Currently, marijuana is the most commonly used “illicit” drug in the United States, with about 12% of people 12 years of age or older reporting use in the past year and particularly high rates of use among young people. 1 The most common route of . . .

Hempseeds, the edible fruits of the Cannabis sativa L. plant, were initially considered a by-product of the hemp technical fibre industry. Nowadays, following the restorationing of the cultivation of C. sativa L. plants containing an amount of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) <0.3% or 0.2% (industrial hemp) there is a growing interest for the hempseeds production due to their high nutritional value and functional features. The goal of this review is to examine the scientific literature concerning the nutritional and functional properties of hempseeds. Furthermore, we revised the scientific literature regarding the potential use of hempseeds and their derivatives as a dietary supplement for the prevention and treatment of inflammatory and chronic-degenerative diseases on animal models and humans too. In the first part of the work, we provide information regarding the genetic, biochemical, and legislative aspects of this plant that are, in our opinion essential to understand the difference between “industrial” and “drug-type” hemp. In the final part of the review, the employment of hempseeds by the food industry as livestock feed supplement and as ingredient to enrich or fortify daily foods has also revised. Overall, this review intends to encourage further and comprehensive investigations about the adoption of hempseeds in the functional foods field.

The number of people entering specialist drug treatment for cannabis problems has increased considerably in recent years. The reasons for this are unclear, but rising cannabis potency could be a contributing factor. Cannabis potency data were obtained from an ongoing monitoring programme in the Netherlands. We analysed concentrations of δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from the most popular variety of domestic herbal cannabis sold in each retail outlet (2000-2015). Mixed effects linear regression models examined time-dependent associations between THC and first-time cannabis admissions to specialist drug treatment. Candidate time lags were 0-10 years, based on normative European drug treatment data. THC increased from a mean (95% CI) of 8.62 (7.97-9.27) to 20.38 (19.09-21.67) from 2000 to 2004 and then decreased to 15.31 (14.24-16.38) in 2015. First-time cannabis admissions (per 100 000 inhabitants) rose from 7.08 to 26.36 from 2000 to 2010, and then decreased to 19.82 in 2015. THC was positively associated with treatment entry at lags of 0-9 years, with the strongest association at 5 years, b = 0.370 (0.317-0.424), p < 0.0001. After adjusting for age, sex and non-cannabis drug treatment admissions, these positive associations were attenuated but remained statistically significant at lags of 5-7 years and were again strongest at 5 years, b = 0.082 (0.052-0.111), p < 0.0001. In this 16-year observational study, we found positive time-dependent associations between changes in cannabis potency and first-time cannabis admissions to drug treatment. These associations are biologically plausible, but their strength after adjustment suggests that other factors are also important.

Legal Cannabis products in the United States are required to report THC potency (total THC % by dry weight) on packaging, however concerns have been raised that reported THC potency values are inaccurate. Multiple studies have demonstrated that THC potency is a primary factor in determining pricing for Cannabis flower, so it has an outsized role in the marketplace. Reports of inflated THC potency and “lab shopping” to obtain higher THC potency results have been circulating for some time, but a side-by-side investigation of the reported potency and flower in the package has not previously been conducted. Using HPLC, we analyzed THC potency in 23 samples from 10 dispensaries throughout the Colorado Front Range and compared the results to the THC potency reported on the packaging. Average observed THC potency was 14.98 +/- 2.23%, which is substantially lower than recent reports summarizing dispensary reported THC potency. The average observed THC potency was 23.1% lower than the lowest label reported values and 35.6% lower than the highest label reported values. Overall, ~70% of the samples were more than 15% lower than the THC potency numbers reported on the label, with three samples having only one half of the reported maximum THC potency. Although the exact source of the discrepancies is difficult to determine, a lack of standardized testing protocols, limited regulatory oversight, and financial incentives to market high THC potency likely play a significant role. Given our results it is urgent that steps are taken to increase label accuracy of Cannabis being sold to the public. The lack of accurate reporting of THC potency can have impacts on medical patients controlling dosage, recreational consumers expecting an effect aligned with price, and trust in the industry as a whole. As the legal cannabis market continues to grow, it is essential that the industry moves toward selling products with more accurate labeling.

In the past 50 years, Cannabis sativa (C. sativa) has gone from a substance essentially prohibited worldwide to one that is gaining acceptance both culturally and legally in many countries for medicinal and recreational use. As additional jurisdictions legalize Cannabis products and the variety and complexity of these products surpass the classical dried plant material, appropriate methods for measuring the biologically active constituents is paramount to ensure safety and regulatory compliance. While there are numerous active compounds in C. sativa the primary cannabinoids of regulatory and safety concern are (-)-Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), and their respective acidic forms THCA-A and CBDA. Using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioanalytical method validation guidelines we developed a sensitive, selective, and accurate method for the simultaneous analysis CBD, CBDA, THC, and THCA-A in oils and THC & CBD in more complex matrices. This HPLC-MS/MS method was simple and reliable using standard sample dilution and homogenization, an isocratic chromatographic separation, and a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) for analytes was 0.195 ng/mL over a 0.195-50.0 ng/mL range of quantification with a coefficient of correlation of >0.99. Average intra-day and inter-day accuracies were 94.2-112.7% and 97.2-110.9%, respectively. This method was used to quantify CBD, CBDA, THC, and THCA-A in 40 commercial hemp products representing a variety of matrices including oils, plant materials, and creams/cosmetics. All products tested met the federal regulatory restrictions on THC content in Canada (<10 μg/g) except two, with concentrations of 337 and 10.01 μg/g. With respect to CBD, the majority of analyzed products contained low CBD levels and a CBD: CBDA ratio of <1.0. In contrast, one product contained 8,410 μg/g CBD and a CBD: CBDA ratio of >1,000 (an oil-based product). Overall, the method proved amenable to the analysis of various commercial products including oils, creams, and plant material and may be diagnostically indicative of adulteration with non-hemp C. sativa, specialized hemp cultivars, or unique manufacturing methods.

Decarboxylation of Δ -tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (Δ -THCA) to Δ -tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ -THC) by heating is a common method for determining total Δ -THC. In the manual for cannabis identification and analysis, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) proposed decarboxylation conditions. Although the manual's primary analytical target is Δ -THC, some reports also quantified cannabidiol (CBD). The authors assessed the efficiency of decarboxylation of Δ -THCA and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), a carboxylated form of CBD, under four decarboxylation conditions, including the UNODC condition. Δ -THCA and CBDA were heated in 2-mL glass vials at 150 °C for 12 min after the following treatment: condition A involves the addition of ethanol without capping, condition B involves non addition of solvent without capping, condition C involves non addition of solvent with capping, and condition D (UNODC condition) involves the addition of 0.5 mg/mL tribenzylamine (TBA) in ethanol without capping. The residue after heating was dissolved in methanol and then analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. The production of Δ -THC and CBD was low (≤ 10.1%) under conditions A and B. Under condition C, Δ -THC production was increased (53.4%), but CBD production was hardly improved (11.7%). Under condition D, Δ -THC and CBD production dramatically increased to 83.2 and 71.0%, respectively. These findings indicated that TBA improved the production of Δ -THC and CBD from their carboxylated forms; however, even in the presence of TBA, their production did not reach 100%. Forensic toxicologists should understand the effectiveness and limitations of decarboxylation under the UNODC condition.