Key Takeaways

  1. In this nationally representative 2022 sample, 284 (weighted 11.6%) reported cannabis use and 70 (weighted 2.9%) had probable CUD, reinforcing that clinically significant cannabis-related problems affect a substantial minority of veterans in routine practice.
  2. The Pacific region stood out not only for cannabis use (18.6%) but for probable CUD (8.8%), a rate the authors note exceeds the contemporary estimate for the general adult US population (7%), suggesting clinicians in that region should have a lower threshold to assess impaired control and functional consequences rather than use alone.
  3. New England had relatively high cannabis use (13.4%) but much lower probable CUD (3.5%), and its cannabis use prevalence did not significantly differ from any other region (all Ps > .17); high use prevalence alone may therefore not reliably indicate the same level of disorder burden across regions.
  4. Probable CUD was concentrated in a younger but still older veteran subgroup, with mean age 53 years, while cannabis users had a mean age of 59 years, supporting cannabis-related assessment even in aging veterans rather than focusing only on younger adults.
  5. Veterans with probable CUD were less likely to have completed college, less likely to have served 10 or more years, less likely to be married/partnered, and more likely to rely on the VA as their primary source of health care, which can help clinicians identify patients who may warrant more careful screening.
  6. State-level patterns suggest clinicians should not assume risk is limited to recreationally legal states: among states with at least 30 respondents, Oklahoma had 20.5% cannabis use, and North Carolina and Indiana were among the top 5 for probable CUD at 9.0% and 4.9%, respectively.
Read full article
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. (PPP) makes no warranties about the accuracy or completeness of any information published in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry or other PPP materials, and disclaims liability for any use or non-use of that information. Clinicians should not rely solely on these materials and should exercise their own professional judgment when making patient care decisions on an individualized basis.