Characteristics of Canadians likely to try or increase cannabis use following legalization for nonmedical purposes: a cross-sectional study

Harman S. Sandhu; Laura N. Anderson; Jason W. Busse

doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190008

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1:
Percentages of respondents who reported they would try or increase their cannabis consumption (n = 29 928 424), try or consume different types of cannabis products (n = 29 607 064), and obtain or purchase cannabis from another source (n = 29 300 593), following legalization of cannabis use for nonmedical purposes.

Tables

Figures

View popup

Table 1:

Weighted table of respondent characteristics (n = 27 808 081)

Characteristic	Percentage (95% CI)
Sex
Female	50.3 (50.0–50.6)
Male	49.7 (49.4–50.0)
Age, yr
≥ 65	18.5 (18.2–18.7)
45–64	32.6 (32.3–32.9)
35–44	16.6 (16.4–16.8)
25–34	19.5 (18.7–20.4)
15–24	12.9 (12.0–13.7)
Cannabis use in past 3 mo
No	84.8 (84.0–85.7)
Yes	15.2 (14.3–16.0)
Education level
Bachelor’s degree or higher	32.7 (31.7–33.8)
College or diploma	33.7 (32.6–34.7)
Less than HS or HS only	33.6 (32.6–34.7)
Income level, $
< 40 000	49.7 (48.7–50.8)
40 000–79 999	32.0 (31.0–33.1)
≥ 80 000	18.3 (17.5–19.0)
Main activity
Employed	59.2 (58.1–60.2)
Student	6.8 (6.1–7.5)
Caregiving/housework	8.4 (7.8–9.1)
Retired/LTI	20.6 (20.0–21.2)
Other	5.0 (4.4–5.6)
Mental health
Good to excellent	93.8 (93.2–94.4)
Fair or poor	6.2 (5.6–6.8)
Province or territory capital city, grouped
Ontario	39.4 (39.1–39.7)
Quebec	22.9 (22.7–23.2)
Atlantic provinces	6.5 (6.4–6.6)
Manitoba	3.4 (3.3–3.4)
Saskatchewan	3.0 (2.9–3.0)
Alberta	11.5 (11.3–11.6)
British Columbia	13.3 (13.1–13.5)
Territory capital cities	0.05 (0.049–0.051)
Survey wave
1	32.9 (32.6–33.2)
2	33.5 (33.2–33.8)
3	33.7 (33.4–34.0)

Note: CI = confidence interval, HS = high school, LTI = long-term illness. Percentage totals for ages and provinces do not add up to exactly 100% because of bootstrapping and rounding. A weighted count (n) can be calculated by multiplying the proportion by the total population size.

View popup

Table 2:

Results of the multivariable logistic regression analysis with the outcome of interest being more likely to try or increase cannabis use after legalization (n = 27 808 081)

Characteristic	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted risk increase percentage (95% CI)
Sex
Female	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Male	1.3^* (1.2–1.5)	1.1 (1.0–1.3)	NR
Age, yr
≥ 65	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
45–64	1.7^* (1.4–2.1)	1.3 (1.0–1.6)	NR
35–44	2.8^* (2.3–3.3)	1.8^* (1.3–2.4)	6.8 (3.5–10.1)
25–34	4.2^* (3.5–5.1)	2.6^* (1.9–3.4)	12.6 (8.8–16.4)
15–24	5.3^* (4.2–6.8)	3.8^* (2.6–5.6)	20.1 (13.9–26.2)
Cannabis use in past 3 mo
No	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Yes	4.3^* (3.7–5.0)	3.3^* (2.8–3.9)	20.4 (17.1–23.6)
Education level
Bachelor’s degree or higher	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
College or diploma	0.8^* (0.7–0.9)	0.9 (0.7–1.0)	NR
Less than HS or HS only	0.9 (0.8–1.1)	0.9 (0.8–1.1)	NR
Income level, $
< 40 000	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
40 000–79 999	1.0 (0.8–1.1)	1.2^* (1.0–1.4)	2.5 (0.3–4.7)
≥ 80 000	1.2^* (1.1–1.4)	1.5^* (1.3–1.9)	6.1 (3.2–9.0)
Main activity
Employed	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Student	1.4^* (1.1–1.9)	0.9 (0.6–1.3)	NR
Caregiving/housework	0.8 (0.7–1.0)	1.0 (0.8–1.3)	NR
Retired/LTI	0.4^* (0.4–0.5)	0.9 (0.7–1.1)	NR
Other	1.1 (0.8–1.4)	0.8 (0.6–1.1)	NR
Mental health
Good to excellent	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Poor or fair	2.6^* (2.1–3.2)	2.0^* (1.6–2.6)	11.5 (6.7–16.2)

Note: CI = confidence interval, HS = high school, LTI = long-term illness, NR = not reported (for adjusted ORs that were not significant), OR = odds ratio, Ref. = reference category. The adjusted model includes province/territory and survey wave.
↵* Wald test for predictors being significant in model at p < 0.05.