"He's used drugs - he's biased! He's not a drug user - what would he know!": A cross-sectional, online study of drug researchers' experiential knowledge of drug use and disclosure.

Introduction: Despite the recognized value of experiential knowledge, drug use and disclosure of drug use within the drug research community is rarely discussed or studied. Methods: We distributed a cross-sectional online survey using targeted recruitment. Researchers provided information on drug use, disclosure of use (or abstinence) professionally, and their impact via write-in text boxes. We used the general inductive approach to analyze the data. Results: Of the sample (n=669, 43 countries), 52 % were cisgender women, 89 % had post-graduate education, and 79 % worked in academia. Most (86 %) reported lifetime drug use and 47 % past 3-month use. Among 557 researchers who used drugs, 59 % disclosed their use to institutional colleagues, 59 % to colleagues outside their institution, 25 % to research participants, and 11 % in their research/scholarship. Themes included frequency; context; meaning of drug use disclosure personally, professionally, and socially; and how drug use experience and disclosure informs research. Respondents connected their concerns about disclosure in research with issues of social identity, professional risk, and the role of stigma related to lived experience. Some respondents felt that such concerns reinforce a vacuum, noting that the inability to disclose drug use limits research questions and the knowledge base overall. Discussion: Our findings support the dichotomy of thought surrounding the lived experience of drug use: "[They've] used drugs- [they're] biased!" and "[They're] not a drug user-what would [they] know!" Our findings provide an opportunity to reflect upon our positionality and the impact researchers' own drug use may have on the field.

Presence of Content Appealing to Youth on Cannabis-Infused Edibles Packaging.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consistent regulation of cannabis edibles packaging to restrict youth-appealing content in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe content appealing to youth on U.S. cannabis-infused edibles packaging. METHODS: We analyzed 256 photos of cannabis-infused edibles packaging collected from U.S. adults from 25 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico between May 2020 to August 2021. We coded the presence of product knockoffs, human and non-human creatures, images indicating flavor, text indicating flavor, and the number of colors. We compared these codes across states' legalization status (medical and non-medical cannabis, medical cannabis only, or limited cannabis legalization). RESULTS: Overall, 15% of packages resembled product knockoffs, 23% contained human/non-human creatures, 35% contained flavor images, 91% contained flavor text, and median number of colors was 5 (range from 1 to 10+). Packages purchased in states with medical and non-medical cannabis, medical cannabis only, or limited cannabis legalization differed significantly on product knockoffs (11%, 26%, 38%, p = 0.007), human/non-human creatures (19%, 33%, 63%, p = 0.002), flavor text (93%, 81%, 100%, p = 0.046), and number of colors (median of 5, 5, and 10, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Existing laws have not adequately limited content appealing to youth on U.S. cannabis-infused edibles packaging. Robust and consistent regulations in the U.S. are needed to ensure that the packaging of such products does not contain content that appeal to youth and lead to initiation or inadvertent ingestion.

Copycat and lookalike edible cannabis product packaging in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recent media reports have highlighted copycat/lookalike cannabis edibles as a public health concern. No empirical papers have described this phenomenon. METHODS: From May 2020-August 2021, we collected photos of cannabis products via an online survey of cannabis users and through personal contacts. Copycat/lookalike products are defined as those that use the same or similar brand name, logo, and/or imagery as an existing commercial non-cannabis counterpart (CNCC). We assessed each package for similarities with its CNCC with respect to brand name, product name, font, color, flavors, and brand/promotional characters. We examined cannabis content indicators including: THC content per package and serving, cannabis leaf symbol, product warnings, cannabis terms, cannabis motifs, activation time, and guidance on edible use. RESULTS: We collected photos of 731 cannabis products; 267 (36%) were edibles of which 22 (8%) represented 13 unique copycat/lookalike products. Eight used exact brand/product names as existing CNCCs, and five used similar names. Packages copied or imitated a mean of 3.9 of six features and indicated cannabis content with a mean of 4.1 of eight features. Thirteen packages indicated a mean THC content of 459 mg/package. Four reported THC dose per serving, with a mean dose of 47.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Our content analysis highlights three key concerns. First, copycat/lookalike edibles subtly indicate cannabis content while using high fidelity replication or imitation of their CNCC. Second, THC content is high and there were multiple 10 mg THC doses in the equivalent of 1 serving of a CNCC. Third, these products may be attractive to children.