? 2023 Elsevier Inc.Purpose: The growth and increasing sophistication of the legal cannabis industry necessitates further scientific inquiry to establish an evidence-based policy path forward. However, policymakers must balance public demand for cannabis reform with the lack of scientific consensus on key issues. This Commentary discusses Massachusetts’ statutory provisions supporting cannabis research, advances in social equity driven by data, and critical policy issues, which invite questions without clear scientific answers. Findings: Although the full breadth of inquiry needed cannot possibly be contained in a single article, this Commentary poses questions in 2 pertinent issue areas that affect adult and medical use. First, we discuss the current limitations on determining the scope and severity of cannabis-impaired driving and detecting impairment at any one point in time. Although experimental studies have found varying levels of impairment on driving ability, observational data have been inconclusive regarding the extent of traffic incidents involving cannabis impairment. A precise threshold for impairment and manner of detection must be established to develop just enforcement measures. Second, we discuss the lack of clinical standardization in medical cannabis use. In the absence of a consistent clinical framework, medical cannabis patients face undue burdens that limit access to treatment. A more well-defined clinical structure is needed to enhance use of and access to therapeutic cannabis treatment models. Implications: Cannabis policy reform has gone forward at the will of voters despite the status of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance at the federal level, which has limited opportunities to research cannabis because it is commercially available. The implication of such limitations is realized by states leading cannabis reform, where unanswered questions present an opportunity for the scientific community to inform an evidence-based path forward in cannabis policy.
展开▼
