RESUMO
Food products containing cannabis extract (edibles) have emerged as a popular and lucrative facet of the legalized market for both recreational and medicinal cannabis. The many formulations of cannabis extracts used in edibles present a unique regulatory challenge for policy makers. Though edibles are often considered a safe, discreet, and effective means of attaining the therapeutic and/or intoxicating effects of cannabis without exposure to the potentially harmful risks of cannabis smoking, little research has evaluated how ingestion differs from other methods of cannabis administration in terms of therapeutic efficacy, subjective effects, and safety. The most prominent difference between ingestion and inhalation of cannabis extracts is the delayed onset of drug effect with ingestion. Consumers often do not understand this aspect of edible use and may consume a greater than intended amount of drug before the drug has taken effect, often resulting in profoundly adverse effects. Written for the educated layperson and for policy makers, this paper explores the current state of research regarding edibles, highlighting the promises and challenges that edibles present to both users and policy makers, and describes the approaches that four states in which recreational cannabis use is legal have taken regarding regulating edibles.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Public school policies related to physical activity and nutrition recently have become the focal point for policymakers to evaluate the effect of regulations on the childhood obesity epidemic. State school board associations have begun to provide school districts templates for wellness policies, and little research exists that evaluates the effect of a template on the strength and comprehensiveness of these policies. PURPOSE: To determine the strength and comprehensiveness of school wellness policies developed using a standard template when compared to those that do not. METHODS: In 2011, a random sample of wellness policies from school districts in Virginia (ten locally developed wellness policies and ten template-based policies) was coded using a previously validated audit tool for strength and comprehensiveness. Data were reduced to a scale ranging from 0 to 1, with higher scores representing stronger and more-comprehensive policies, and compared using t-tests. RESULTS: Overall, only 17% of school wellness policies met all federal requirements. On average, locally developed policies met five of six federal requirements, whereas VSBA policies met four of six, t(2, 21)=2.161, p<0.05. Both types of policies were ranked on a scale from 0 (weakest) to 1 (strongest); both types were weak (M=0.16±0.13) and only mildly comprehensive (M=0.37±0.16). There was a difference in policy comprehensiveness and strength between locally developed policies and template-based policies. Locally developed policies were stronger, t(2, 21)= -1.82, p<0.05, and more comprehensive, t(2, 21)= -2.5, p<0.05, than template-based policies. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, locally developed policies were stronger than template-based policies. If replicated in large studies, these findings suggest that further research is needed about how best to support schools that wish to develop school wellness policies.