Cannabis Use During Early Pregnancy Following Recreational Cannabis Legalization

JAMA Health Forum
2024
Kelly C. Young-Wolff, Natalie E. Slama, & Lyndsay A. Avalos

Key Points

Question  Did rates of cannabis use during early pregnancy change after recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) in California, and did trends differ in jurisdictions that allowed vs banned adult-use retailers?

Findings  This time-series study of 300 993 pregnancies universally screened for prenatal cannabis use at entrance to prenatal care in Northern California from 2012 to 2019, there was an increase in self-reported and biochemically verified prenatal cannabis use after RCL implementation in 2018. The increase was observed only among those living in jurisdictions allowing adult-use cannabis retailers.

Meaning  The implementation of RCL in California was associated with an increase in prenatal cannabis use, driven by individuals living in jurisdictions that permitted adult-use retailers.

Abstract

Importance  It is unknown whether state recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) is related to increased rates of prenatal cannabis use or whether RCL-related changes vary with cannabis screening methods or the local policy environment.

Objective  To test whether RCL in California was associated with changes in prenatal cannabis use rates, whether changes were evident in both self-report and urine toxicology testing, and whether rates varied by local policies banning vs allowing adult-use retailers post-RCL.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This population-based time-series study used data from pregnancies in Kaiser Permanente Northern California universally screened for cannabis use during early pregnancy by self-report and toxicology testing from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Analyses were conducted from September 2022 to August 2024.

Exposures  California state RCL passage (November 9, 2016) and implementation of legal sales (January 1, 2018) were examined with a 1-month lag. Local policies allowing vs banning medical retailers pre-RCL and adult-use retailers post-RCL were also examined.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Any prenatal cannabis use was based on screening at entrance to prenatal care (typically at 8-10 weeks’ gestation) and defined as (1) a positive urine toxicology test result or self-report, (2) a positive urine toxicology test result, or (3) self-report. Interrupted time series models were fit using Poisson regression, adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, and neighborhood deprivation index.

Results  The sample of 300 993 pregnancies (236 327 unique individuals) comprised 25.9% Asian individuals, 6.4% Black individuals, 26.0% Hispanic individuals, 37.7% White individuals, and 4.1% individuals of other, multiple, or unknown race, with a mean (SD) age of 30.3 (5.4) years. Before RCL implementation, rates of prenatal cannabis use rose steadily from 4.5% in January 2012 to 7.1% in January 2018. There was no change in use rates at the time of RCL passage (level change rate ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11) and a statistically significant increase in rates in the first month after RCL implementation, increasing to 8.6% in February 2018 (level change RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16). Results were similar when defining prenatal cannabis use by (1) a toxicology test or (2) self-report. In local policy analyses, the post-RCL implementation increase in use was only found among those in jurisdictions allowing adult-use cannabis retailers (allowed RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33; banned RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.10).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this time-series study, RCL implementation in California was associated with an increase in rates of cannabis use during early pregnancy, defined by both self-report and toxicology testing, driven by individuals living in jurisdictions that allowed adult-use retailers.

This library aims to empower you with knowledge but it does not replace the personalized advice and guidance a healthcare professional can provide. Before implementing any changes to your health regimen based on the contents of this library, we strongly advise you to consult with a qualified healthcare professional. Your doctor’s expertise is essential for interpreting how these insights may apply to your unique health circumstances.