Cannabis: health and social responses

Overview

Key issues

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in Europe and globally. Cannabis use is often experimental, commonly lasting for only a short time in early adulthood, but some people may develop more persistent and high-risk patterns of use, and, as a result, experience adverse health and social consequences. These are more likely when:

• cannabis is used frequently;
• higher-potency cannabis products are used;
• regular use begins in adolescence.

Health and social harms associated with the use of cannabis may include:

• impaired performance and driving ability;
• mental health problems;
• maternal, neonatal and child developmental health issues;
• social and economic problems.

As patterns of cannabis use, legal environments and drug markets are fast changing, there is a need for continued monitoring of the nature and burden of cannabis-related harm, as well as a better understanding of the possible causality of health and social harms associated with its use.

Response options

• Prevention programmes including multi-component school interventions to develop social competencies and refusal skills, as well as healthy decision-making and coping strategies; family interventions; and structured internet and digital-based interventions.
• Treatment interventions, including cognitive behavioural therapy, multidimensional family therapy, and internet and digital-based interventions.
• Harm-reduction interventions to reduce use and promote safer use, including the provision of clear, objective information.

European picture

• Universal prevention is widespread, but the approaches adopted do not always reflect the evidence base in this area. Selective prevention approaches are used in some European countries, most commonly with young offenders or with young people in care institutions. Indicated prevention approaches do not appear to be widely used.
• The extent, nature and quality of the treatment offered for cannabis-related problems is difficult to summarise at the EU level, and it is clear that large variations exist among and across Member States. Treatment interventions are often delivered in the community, but also in clinical settings and by general practitioners. Web-based programmes are increasingly available in some Member States.
• Harm-reduction interventions and policies in Europe have historically focused on high-risk drug use, mostly related to opioids. In recent years, the harm-reduction approach has been extended to other substances, including cannabis, but there remains a lack of data on their availability, coverage, effectiveness and impact.

Key issues: patterns of cannabis use and related harms

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in Europe and globally. As well as herbal cannabis and cannabis resin, an increasing range of more novel forms of the drug can now be found on the illicit market.

Cannabis products are derived from the Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica plant. The main psychoactive constituent is Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), are found in the cannabis plant but are less psychoactive, although they may interact with THC and contribute to its effects on the human body.

The primary focus here is on the health and social responses to problems arising from the non-medical use of cannabis.

For an overview of developments relating to the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, or new approaches to regulate the supply of cannabis for recreational use, please consult the EUDA Cannabis policy hub.

Prevalence of use

In Europe, recent cannabis use is highest among young adults, while the age of first use is lower than for most other illicit drugs. It is estimated that about 15 million young Europeans (aged 15-34), or around 15 % of this age group, have used cannabis in the last year, with this figure increasing to 19 % in the 15-24 age group.

Among the overall adult population (aged 15 to 64) around 4 million or 1.5 % are thought to be daily or almost daily cannabis users. Males are typically twice as likely to report using this drug than women. There is, however, considerable variation in reported levels of use between countries (European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA), 2025).

Patterns of use

Cannabis use is often experimental, with the drug taken for only a short time in early adulthood. However, some people develop more persistent patterns of use and are at greater risk of experiencing adverse health and social consequences.

In Europe, herbal cannabis and cannabis resin remain the most common forms of the drug, and these are most often smoked with tobacco, although herbal cannabis may also be smoked on its own. In addition to smoking, certain cannabis products can be eaten or even applied topically. Recent years have seen a rapid growth in the range of available products based on cannabis. Such products include capsules, oils and a wide variety of edibles, with a considerable variation seen in the potency of these different cannabis formulations.

Cannabis-related risks and harms

Not every person who uses cannabis experiences problems related to its use. However, different patterns of use, modes of administration and product types may be associated with particular risks and harms.

Certain risks are associated with the mode of cannabis administration. When cannabis is smoked mixed with tobacco it can bring with it the health risks associated with tobacco use and with nicotine dependence. Cannabis edibles may pose a greater risk of causing severe intoxication and may be accidentally consumed by young children attracted to products such as sweets and chocolate (Allaf et al., 2023). Cannabis dabbing, which refers to the inhalation of very concentrated THC, has been linked to acute toxicity presentations in hospital emergency departments (Bidwell et al., 2021; European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 2024; Mullins, 2021). The use of vaporisers containing cannabis extracts has increased in recent years and has been associated with a range of risks (MacCallum et al., 2024).

Health and social harms associated with cannabis use are more likely if regular use begins in adolescence, a time when the brain is still developing. Increased frequency of use is also associated with a greater risk of health harms. The risks may also rise with the use of higher-potency cannabis products, especially those with high concentrations of the main psychoactive component tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (Hoch et al., 2024; Sorkhou et al., 2021). High-potency products have been associated with significant adverse health effects and have been linked to acute toxicity presentations in hospital emergency departments (Bidwell et al., 2021; EMCDDA, 2024; Mullins, 2021).

But while cannabis use is associated with a number of health and social harms, the nature of these associations is complex and it has not always been possible to determine causation (Campeny et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2019; Hoch et al., 2019; Imtiaz et al., 2016; National Academies of Sciences, 2017; Solmi et al., 2023; World Health Organization, 2016).

Health and social harms that have been associated with the use of cannabis include:

• mental health conditions;
• maternity, new-born and developmental conditions;
• impaired performance and driving ability;
• social and economic problems.

Concerns have also been growing about problems associated with highly potent synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists, commonly referred to as synthetic cannabinoids. Despite acting on the same cannabinoid receptors in the brain, these substances are very different from cannabis, and their use is associated with more severe consequences, including death. There are concerns that some products sold on the illicit market as natural cannabis may be adulterated with potent synthetic cannabinoids (see Spotlight on… Synthetic cannabinoids and New psychoactive substances: health and social responses).

Evidence and responses to cannabis-related problems

The primary objectives for health and social responses to cannabis use and associated problems include:

• preventing use of the drug or delaying its onset;
• preventing the escalation of cannabis use from occasional to regular use;
• avoiding or reducing harmful modes of use;
• providing treatment for people whose cannabis use has become problematic;
• reducing the likelihood of people driving after consuming cannabis or engaging in other activities where cannabis intoxication may increase the risk of accidents.

Policy objectives can also include identifying measures to reduce the involvement of young people who use cannabis in the criminal justice system. In addition, where forms of cannabis are being made available legally, consideration might be given to ensuring product safety and enforcing regulatory safeguards, such as the prevention of sales to minors.

Prevention

Prevention programmes that have shown evidence of being effective with cannabis use are generally not substance-specific, but rather take a developmental approach focused on helping children and young people achieve the behavioural goals in each phase of their social and cognitive development. Prevention programmes for adolescents often aim to reduce or delay cannabis use along with the use of alcohol and cigarettes.

School-based prevention programmes

Prevention programmes that are delivered across multiple settings and domains (e.g. in school, to the family, in the community) appear to be the most effective, while standalone school-based programmes that focus solely on increasing students’ knowledge of the risks of drug use have been found to be ineffective in preventing cannabis and other drug use (Faggiano et al., 2014; Tinner et al., 2022).

Well-designed school-based prevention programmes that have been shown to reduce cannabis use tend to have multiple aims and are typically manual-based, meaning that their implementation is standardised through the use of protocols and guidance for those delivering them (Faggiano et al., 2014; Tejada-Gallardo et al., 2020; Tinner et al., 2022). The aims of these programmes generally include:

• developing social competencies and refusal skills;
• improving decision-making and coping;
• raising awareness of the social influences on drug use;
• correcting normative misperceptions that drug use is common among peers;
• providing information about the risks involved in using drugs.

Examples of evidence-based interventions carried out in schools to prevent cannabis use among adolescents include: the Sobre Canyes i Petes programme, an initiative with potential benefits in preventing progression from non-use or ever-use of cannabis to regular use; and Unplugged, which was found to be beneficial in preventing the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. Other examples of positively evaluated programmes can be found at the Best practice portal – Xchange prevention registry.

Internet and digital-based interventions

Internet and digital-based interventions are delivered and accessed through technological means such as online or web-based platforms, smartphone apps, and virtual and augmented reality spaces. These interventions have been found to potentially increase accessibility to substance use programmes for people who may be using cannabis (Boumparis and Schaub, 2022; Hoch et al., 2016). However, it remains unclear whether digital interventions can help prevent cannabis use (Beneria et al., 2022) and this is an area requiring further research and evaluation.

Mass media campaigns

Mass media campaigns in public health disseminate information about health, or threats to it, to persuade people to make behavioural changes. Such campaigns are usually delivered via television and radio, newspaper or magazine advertisements, billboards and roadside posters. The internet, social media, text messaging and email can also be used.

Standalone mass media campaigns (including TV, radio, print and internet) that use social marketing principles and disseminate information about the risks of drug use tend to be assessed as ineffective with regard to achieving behavioural change among people who use cannabis and other drugs (Allara et al., 2015). It is generally recommended that mass media campaigns should only be considered as part of a wider set of programmes that incorporate a broader range of approaches and that they are also carefully evaluated.

Brief interventions

Brief interventions are focused and time-limited approaches developed to motivate individuals to change their behaviour. They generally aim to reduce the intensity of drug use or prevent its escalation to problem use. Targeting and delivery methods vary considerably. Part of the attraction of such interventions is that they may be used in different settings, for example, by general practitioners, counsellors, youth workers or police officers, as well as in health services and treatment centres. This type of intervention mainly incorporates elements of motivational interviewing.

Recent reviews found that, while they have some effects on alcohol use, brief interventions do not reduce cannabis use and further studies are required (Chazal et al., 2022; Imtiaz et al., 2016; Steele et al., 2020).

Overview of the evidence on … interventions to prevent or delay cannabis use

Statement	Evidence
	Effect	Quality
Multicomponent interventions can reduce cannabis use when delivered in schools using social competence and influence approaches, correcting normative misperceptions and developing social competencies and refusal skills.	Beneficial	High
Digital interventions increase the accessibility to programmes and the ability to reach people who may be using cannabis.	Beneficial	Low
Standalone school interventions, knowledge-based models or those based solely on social influence models, do not reduce cannabis use (more than usual curricula).	Unclear	Moderate
Digital prevention interventions may reduce cannabis use.	Unclear	Low
Brief interventions (e.g. motivational interviewing) may produce either very small or no benefits in reducing cannabis use among young adults who are not already involved in regular illicit drug use.	Unclear	Low
Brief interventions delivered in schools do not have a significant effect on cannabis use.	Unclear	Moderate

 

Evidence effect key:
Beneficial: Evidence of benefit in the intended direction. Unclear: It is not clear whether the intervention produces the intended benefit.Potential harm: Evidence of potential harm, or evidence that the intervention has the opposite effect to that intended (e.g. increasing rather than decreasing drug use).

Evidence quality key:
High: We can have a high level of confidence in the evidence available. Moderate: We have reasonable confidence in the evidence available. Low: We have limited confidence in the evidence available. Very low: The evidence available is currently insufficient and therefore considerable uncertainty exists as to whether the intervention will produce the intended outcome.

Harm reduction

Harm-reduction approaches seek to reduce drug-related health, social and economic harms that may impact on individuals, communities and societies.

As the types and forms of cannabis products available in Europe continue to change, so too do considerations about the implications this may have for harm-reduction responses. The novelty of some cannabis products raises issues around consumer safety, particularly where little information exists about their impact on human health. Current and future changes in legal frameworks regarding cannabis may require national public health strategies to address such questions.

Some states in the US and Canada have been developing harm-reduction strategies, guidelines and protocols in response to an increasing demand related to the regulation of cannabis use (Borodovsky et al., 2022; Fischer et al., 2017; Sherman et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2020; Stone and Sherman, 2023; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2021), but their applicability to the European context has yet to be assessed (Cousijn et al., 2024).

While the effectiveness of most harm-reduction practices and recommendations with regard to cannabis use remains undetermined, some promising approaches for reducing the risks related to cannabis use have been identified based on expert knowledge, and will require further investment in terms of evaluation studies (Fischer et al., 2017; Pratschke, 2024). These include:

• a focus on reduction of risks and promotion of safer use of cannabis instead of cessation;
• discouraging harmful modes of use;
• the provision of clear objective information;
• drug-checking services;
• tailored social media campaigns;
• internet and digital-based interventions.

Engaging the active participation of young people, peers and the community in these activities is important to narrow the gap between people who use cannabis and service providers, which is key to reducing risk-taking behaviour and delivering successful harm-reduction messages.

Reduction of risks and safer use

Recent studies have linked a reduction in cannabis use to functional improvement, supporting the shift to a harm-reduction approach for individuals who do not wish to stop using cannabis (Borodovsky et al., 2022; Sherman et al., 2022; Stone and Sherman, 2023). For these individuals, harm-reduction interventions may focus on avoiding more problematic consumption patterns, limiting the frequency and quantity of use, and raising awareness of the need for vigilance with regard to the possible negative impacts of cannabis use on other areas of life, for example, school performance or social relationships.

While abstinence is the most effective way of avoiding the risks of cannabis use, approaches that promote this have shown little success in the treatment of CUD and should only be taken to certain population groups that appear to be at higher risk of experiencing cannabis-related harm (Borodovsky et al., 2022; Sherman et al., 2022; Stone and Sherman, 2023). These include adolescents, individuals with a personal or family history of psychosis or a substance use disorder, and pregnant women, to prevent adverse effects on the foetus.

Discouraging harmful patterns of use

In Europe, people who use cannabis often smoke the drug with tobacco, and more consideration is needed on what might constitute effective interventions to reduce smoking-related harm in this group. From a public health point of view, the co-use of tobacco with cannabis should be avoided.

People who use cannabis may also be encouraged to avoid deep inhalation and breath-holding — practices that increase the intake of toxic material into the lungs.

Alternatives to smoking, such as vaporisers or edibles, are available, but these methods are not risk-free and there is little evidence on which to judge the potential relative benefits or harms of some of the established and new technologies in this area.

Provision of clear objective harm-reduction information

Harm-reduction services typically have extensive experience in providing harm-reduction recommendations and advice to facilitate informed decision-making among people who use drugs.

Providing objective information, by means including social media, as well as through counselling while offering other harm-reduction services, is generally considered a good approach and may have the potential to reduce cannabis-related harms. Messages may include the following information:

• Adolescent use of cannabis is associated with cognitive function impairment, evident even later in life (Sorkhou et al., 2021).
• Cannabis impacts one’s ability to drive and perform other tasks that require attention and dexterity (Preuss et al., 2021).
• Occasional cannabis use is less risky than regular use (Sorkhou et al., 2021).
• Using cannabis with other substances, such as alcohol, tobacco and medicines may result in undesirable effects and increased risk of addiction (Sokolovsky et al., 2020).
• Ingesting cannabis may increase the risk of undesired addictive effects and interactions. These may also be more difficult to manage as it takes longer to feel the effects of cannabis when it is ingested (Barrus et al., 2016)
• Not all vaporisers are safe — it is important to use one that has been tested and approved (Mian and Earleywine, 2023).
• Being mindful of the setting where cannabis is used may minimise the risk of negative experiences (Skliamis et al., 2021).

Drug-checking services

Drug-checking services provide individuals who use drugs with information on the chemical content of their substances as well as advice and, sometimes, counselling or brief interventions.

Enabling drug-checking of cannabis could potentially facilitate informed decision-making regarding use and dosing, leading to a reduced exposure to harm, as not knowing the potency and possible adulterations of the product (including with synthetic cannabinoids) can expose people who use cannabis to higher risks (Dujourdy and Besacier, 2017; Maghsoudi et al., 2022).

However, cannabis products can be chemically complex and drug-checking services are not always capable of analysing herbal products or detecting adulterants. Synthetic cannabinoids can be particularly challenging to identify. In addition, the existing evidence on the effectiveness of drug-checking services in reducing risk behaviour remains limited.

Internet and digital-based interventions

Internet and digital-based interventions are increasingly used to deliver harm-reduction interventions addressing cannabis use. While more studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, current evidence on these approaches in the prevention and treatment of cannabis use is promising, suggesting that digital interventions can also be adopted for harm-reduction interventions to support people who use cannabis in managing their use.

Treatment

Currently no pharmacotherapies have been approved for the treatment of cannabis use problems. Interventions based on psychosocial approaches remain the first line of treatment for cannabis use, including, in the case of adolescents, multidimensional family therapy.

Psychosocial approaches encompass a range of structured therapeutic procedures which address both the psychological and social aspects of drug use behaviour. These treatments vary in format, duration and intensity, and include cognitive behavioural therapy, contingency management and brief interventions.

For the most part, patients entering treatment for cannabis use are integrated into general substance use treatment programmes. There are also cannabis-specific treatment approaches that seek to adapt to the specific clinical and demographic profiles of patients with cannabis-related problems, but a better understanding of the factors contributing to effective cannabis-related treatment is needed to develop tailored interventions (Cousijn et al., 2024; Feingold et al., 2020; Rabiee et al., 2023). Also required are evidence-based guidelines and the sharing of best practices to support standard-setting and quality assurance in cannabis-related treatment programmes (Feingold et al., 2024).

Cognitive behavioural therapy

Cognitive behavioural therapy promotes the development of alternative coping skills and focuses on changing behaviours related to substance use through self-control, social skills and relapse prevention training.

Available evidence supports the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy, alone or combined with other therapies, in the treatment of cannabis use and dependence in adults (Dalton et al., 2021; Gates et al., 2016; Hogue et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2020).

Multidimensional family therapy

Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) is an integrated, comprehensive, family-centred method for addressing youth problems. In MDFT, therapists work with the adolescent, as well as their family and community, to improve the young person’s coping, problem-solving and decision-making skills, and to enhance family functioning and effective communication.

The available evidence supports the use of MDFT in the treatment of cannabis use among young people (EMCDDA, 2014; Hartnett et al., 2017; Liddle et al., 2008; Rigter et al., 2013).

Internet and digital-based interventions

Internet and digital-based interventions, delivered through online or web-based platforms, smartphone apps, and in virtual and augmented reality spaces, are increasingly used to reach people who use cannabis or may come to use it in the future. While there is some evidence that these interventions may be effective in use reduction and, when required, in facilitating access to face-to-face treatment, more studies are needed to better evaluate their effectiveness (Beneria et al., 2022; Boumparis et al., 2019; Boumparis and Schaub, 2022; Hoch et al., 2016; Olmos et al., 2018).

Brief interventions

Brief interventions are focused and time-limited approaches developed to motivate individuals to change their behaviour. They can be used in different settings, for example by general practitioners, counsellors, youth workers or police officers, and in treatment centres. This type of intervention mainly incorporates elements of motivational interviewing.

However, recent studies have found no evidence to support the use of brief interventions for the treatment of cannabis use among adolescents and young adults (Chazal et al., 2022; Halladay et al., 2019; Imtiaz et al., 2020; Steele et al., 2020).

Pharmacological interventions

Several experimental studies are currently investigating the possible utility of a range of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of CUD and cannabis withdrawal. These include the use of existing psychoactive medicines such as antidepressants, anxiolytics and mood stabilisers. The potential for using THC and other cannabinoids as treatment is also being explored. Some results are promising but, to date, findings have been inconsistent and no effective pharmacological approach to treating cannabis dependence or cannabis withdrawal has yet been identified (Bahji et al., 2021; Kondo et al., 2020; Nielsen et al., 2019; Rømer Thomsen et al., 2022; Vuilleumier et al., 2022).

Addressing dual diagnosis

Dual diagnosis (also referred to as comorbidity or dual disorders) refers to the co-occurrence of a substance use disorder and one or more psychiatric disorders in the same individual.

For a minority of people, cannabis use may be associated with severe mental health problems. It is not uncommon, for instance, for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder to receive an additional diagnosis of CUD, and cannabis is one of the substances most commonly used by individuals with psychosis (Connor et al., 2021). It is important that mental health and substance use services recognise these cases and ensure appropriate interventions are provided (see Spotlight on… Comorbid substance use and mental health problems). A fully integrated treatment approach, where both psychiatric and cannabis use disorders are handled by specialised staff with shared treatment programmes, is likely to be more effective than separate sequential or co-occurring treatment plans. People with psychotic disorders should avoid cannabis and be counselled against its use (Castle and James, 2004).

Overview of the evidence on … treating problematic cannabis use

Statement	Evidence
	Effect	Quality
Psychosocial interventions may reduce cannabis use and related problems, with more intensive interventions (> 4 sessions over > 1 month) producing better outcomes.	Beneficial	Low
Digital interventions increase the accessibility of programmes and their ability to reach people who may be using cannabis.	Beneficial	Low
Digital interventions may reduce cannabis use.	Unclear	Low
Brief behavioural interventions (e.g. motivational interviewing) have not been found to reduce cannabis use in adolescents who are already using it at problematic levels.	Unclear	Moderate

Beneficial: Evidence of benefit in the intended direction. Unclear: It is not clear whether the intervention produces the intended benefit. Potential harm: Evidence of potential harm, or evidence that the intervention has the opposite effect to that intended (e.g. increasing rather than decreasing drug use).

Evidence quality key:
High: We can have a high level of confidence in the evidence available. Moderate: We have reasonable confidence in the evidence available. Low: We have limited confidence in the evidence available. Very low: The evidence available is currently insufficient and therefore considerable uncertainty exists as to whether the intervention will produce the intended outcome.

European picture: availability of cannabis-related interventions

Prevention

Manual-based universal prevention programmes, aimed at developing social competencies and refusal skills, addressing social influences and correcting normative misperceptions about drug use, are reported to be a central component in national prevention strategies in around a quarter of EU countries. Family-based programmes are also widely available. Other countries have prioritised different prevention approaches, for example environmental prevention measures or community approaches.

Selective prevention responses for vulnerable groups are common in about a third of European countries. These responses address both individual behaviours and social contexts, while at the local level they often involve multiple services and stakeholders (e.g. social services, families, young people and the police). The most common target groups are young offenders, pupils with academic and social problems, and young people in care institutions. There is currently a lack of information about the contents of these prevention strategies and evaluations of their effectiveness are limited.

The provision of indicated prevention for at-risk individuals is limited in Europe, with only a few countries reporting that such programmes are available to the majority of those who may need them.

Harm reduction

Harm-reduction interventions and policies in Europe have historically focused on high-risk drug use, mostly related to opioids. In recent years, some harm-reduction interventions have been extended to other substances, including cannabis, but there is a lack of data on their availability and coverage. Drug-checking services, for example, are available in several European countries but it is not clear how many can test cannabis products.

Treatment

Treatment demand

Cannabis is reported to be responsible for a third of all drug treatment admissions in Europe. This finding is difficult to interpret, in part because of the wide variety of interventions provided to people who use cannabis, some of which may be direct referrals from the criminal justice system.

Overall, the number of people reported as entering treatment for cannabis problems remained relatively stable until 2019, before declining during the pandemic, but has now returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, due to data quality and availability issues, as well as the overall impact of the pandemic on service delivery, these trends should be interpreted with caution (EUDA, 2025).

Service availability

The availability and coverage of treatment options for people who use cannabis differ between countries and are challenging to estimate.

According to current data, there are multiple addiction and mental health service responses for people experiencing problems with their cannabis use in Europe. Moreover, recent years have seen an increase in the availability of psychosocial treatments.

Interventions are often delivered in the community, but also in clinical settings and by general practitioners, and may sometimes be offered through telemedicine or digital applications.

Patients entering treatment for cannabis use are frequently integrated into existing general substance-use treatment programmes. About half of EU Member States are recognised as providing some cannabis-specific treatment at the regional or local level; however, less is known about the coverage and capacity of these services.

Cannabis-specific treatment tends to be delivered face to face, but web-based programmes are increasingly available in a range of Member States, including Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Austria and the Netherlands. These programmes provide information on cannabis and other substances, brief clinical assessments, self-help advice and sometimes referral to a counsellor or therapist. They have the potential to reach many people and are, for the most part, free of charge.

In Belgium and Romania, facilities exclusively dedicated to the treatment of cannabis-related problems, often referred to as cannabis clinics, have been opened. These clinics may have a specific focus on cannabis, psychosis and schizophrenia, and other comorbid mental health disorders. They tend to take an interdisciplinary therapeutic approach and provide a range of services, including medical consultation, treatment for cannabis withdrawal and detoxification, inpatient treatment, day-care, and long-term health and social rehabilitation.

Less is known about the availability of treatment for people who use cannabis and have specific needs, such as children, pregnant women, older people and people in prison.

Overall, there is a need to develop a better understanding of cannabis treatment, its implementation and impact, including the numbers of people seeking treatment, the barriers they experience, the settings in which care is provided, and the therapeutic responses offered.

Implications for policy and practice

Basics

• Cannabis remains by far the most used illicit drug in Europe.
• Cannabis use is often experimental, but some people develop more persistent and high-risk patterns of use and may experience adverse health and social consequences.
• Core responses in this area include general prevention approaches aimed at discouraging use or delaying its onset, harm-reduction interventions, and psychosocial treatment for those with more serious problems.

Opportunities

• Evidence-based guidelines and guidance on best practices are needed to inform decisions on treatment programmes for cannabis-related problems and what constitutes effective options for different clients.
• Greater use could be made of e-health and digital interventions alongside the evaluation of novel approaches.
• The assessment of new regulatory models for cannabis that are emerging globally can provide valuable information relating to their impact on cannabis-related problems and responses to them.

Gaps

• More research is needed to better understand the risks associated with cannabis use.
• More attention could be paid to harm-reduction approaches to cannabis use, particularly regarding interventions to modify high-risk patterns of use and reduce co-use with tobacco.
• A better understanding of the types of therapies that people receive on entering treatment for cannabis use in Europe is required to ensure that provision is appropriate, efficient and meets minimum quality standards.
• Guidance is necessary on what constitutes an appropriate way of reducing cannabis-impaired driving.

Data and graphics

In this section, we presents some key statistics on cannabis use among young people (15-34), as well as cannabis treatment in the EU-27, Norway and Turkey. For more detailed statistics as well as methodological information, please refer to the Data section of our website. 

• Prevalence of cannabis use in Europe (European Drug Report 2025)
• Users entering treatment for cannabis in Europe (European Drug Report 2025)

Further resources

EUDA

• Best practice portal – Xchange prevention registry.
• Best practice portal – Evidence database.
• Statistical bulletin.
• Cannabis – the current situation in Europe (European Drug Report).
• Cannabis laws in Europe: questions and answers for policymaking.
• Spotlight on… synthetic cannabinoids.
• EU drug market: cannabis – In-depth analysis.
• Low-THC cannabis products in Europe, 2020.
• Monitoring and evaluating changes in cannabis policies: insights from the Americas, Technical report, 2020.
• Cannabis and driving: questions and answers for policymaking, 2018.

References

Allaf, S., Lim, J. S., Buckley, N. A. and Cairns, R. (2023), ‘The impact of cannabis legalization and decriminalization on acute poisoning: a systematic review’, Addiction 118(12), pp. 2252-2274, doi:10.1111/add.16280.

Allara, E., Ferri, M., Bo, A., Gasparrini, A. and Faggiano, F. (2015), ‘Are mass-media campaigns effective in preventing drug use? A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis’, BMJ Open 5(9), p. e007449, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449.

American Psychiatric Association (2013), Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.

Bahji, A., Meyyappan, A. C., Hawken, E. R. and Tibbo, P. G. (2021), ‘Pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis’, International Journal of Drug Policy 97, p. 103295, doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103295.

Barrus, D. G., Capogrossi, K. L., Cates, S. C., Gourdet, C. K., Peiper, N. C., Novak, S. P., Lefever, T. W. and Wiley, J. L. (2016), ‘Tasty THC: promises and challenges of cannabis edibles’, Methods Reports 2016, doi:10.3768/rtipress.2016.op.0035.1611.

Beneria, A., Santesteban-Echarri, O., Daigre, C., Tremain, H., Ramos-Quiroga, J. A., McGorry, P. D. and Alvarez-Jimenez, M. (2022), ‘Online interventions for cannabis use among adolescents and young adults: systematic review and meta-analysis’, Early Intervention in Psychiatry 16(8), pp. 821-844, doi:10.1111/eip.13226.

Bidwell, L. C., Martin-Willett, R. and Karoly, H. C. (2021), ‘Advancing the science on cannabis concentrates and behavioural health’, Drug and Alcohol Review 40(6), pp. 900-913, doi:10.1111/dar.13281.

Borodovsky, J. T., Sofis, M. J., Sherman, B. J., Gray, K. M. and Budney, A. J. (2022), ‘Characterizing cannabis use reduction and change in functioning during treatment: initial steps on the path to new clinical endpoints’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 36(5), pp. 515-525, doi:10.1037/adb0000817.

Boumparis, N. and Schaub, M. P. (2022), ‘Recent advances in digital health interventions for substance use disorders’, Current Opinion in Psychiatry 35(4), doi:10.1097/YCO.0000000000000798.

Boumparis, N., Loheide-Niesmann, L., Blankers, M., Ebert, D. D., Korf, D., Schaub, M. P., Spijkerman, R., Tait, R. J. and Riper, H. (2019), ‘Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 200, pp. 82-94, doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016.

Broyd, S. J., van Hell, H. H., Beale, C., Yücel, M. and Solowij, N. (2016), ‘Acute and chronic effects of cannabinoids on human cognition-a systematic review’, Biological Psychiatry 79(7), pp. 557-567, doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.12.002.

Campeny, E., Lopez-Pelayo, H., Nutt, D., Blithikioti, C., Oliveras, C., Nuno, L., Maldonado, R., Florez, G., et al. (2020), ‘The blind men and the elephant: systematic review of systematic reviews of cannabis use related health harms’, European Neuropsychopharmacology 33, pp. 1-35, doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.02.003.

Castle, D. J. and James, W. (2004), ‘Addressing cannabis abuse in people with psychosis’, in Castle, D. and Murray, R. (editors), Marijuana and madness: psychiatry and neurobiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 186-197, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543630.014.

Chazal, C., Roux, C., Kinouani, S., Schuers, M., Fortin, F., Pereira, B., Blanc, O., Piñol-Domenech, N., et al. (2022), ‘Effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care for cannabis users aged from 12 to 25 years old: a systematic review’, Family Practice 39(6), pp. 1156-1168, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmac050.

Connor, J. P., Stjepanović, D., Le Foll, B., Hoch, E., Budney, A. J. and Hall, W. D. (2021), ‘Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder’, Nature Reviews Disease Primers 7(1), p. 16, doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00247-4.

Cousijn, J., Kuhns, L., Filbey, F., Freeman, T. P. and Kroon, E. (2024), ‘Cannabis research in context: the case for measuring and embracing regional similarities and differences’, Addiction 119(9), pp. 1502-1504, doi:10.1111/add.16460.

Dalton, K., Bishop, L. and Darcy, S. (2021), ‘Investigating interventions that lead to the highest treatment retention for emerging adults with substance use disorder: A systematic review’, Addictive Behaviors 122, p. 107005, doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.107005.

Drummer, O. H., Gerostamoulos, D., Di Rago, M., Woodford, N. W., Morris, C., Frederiksen, T., Jachno, K. and Wolfe, R. (2020), ‘Odds of culpability associated with use of impairing drugs in injured drivers in Victoria, Australia’, Accident Analysis & Prevention 135, p. 105389, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105389.

Dujourdy, L. and Besacier, F. (2017), ‘A study of cannabis potency in France over a 25 years period (1992–2016)’, Forensic Science International 272, pp. 72-80, doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.01.007.

Duko, B., Dachew, B. A., Pereira, G. and Alati, R. (2022), ‘The effect of prenatal cannabis exposure on offspring preterm birth: a cumulative meta-analysis’, Addiction 118(4), pp. 607-619, doi:10.1111/add.16072.

EMCDDA (2014), ‘Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent drug users: a systematic review’, EMCDDA Papers, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

European Union Drugs Agency (2025), Cannabis – the current situation in Europe (European Drug Report 2025).

EUDA (2025), European drug report 2025: trends and developments.

Faggiano, F., Minozzi, S., Versino, E. and Buscemi, D. (2014), ‘Universal school‐based prevention for illicit drug use’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews(12), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003020.pub3.

Feingold, D., Livne, O., Rehm, J. and Lev-Ran, S. (2020), ‘Probability and correlates of transition from cannabis use to DSM-5 cannabis use disorder: results from a large-scale nationally representative study’, Drug and Alcohol Review, doi:10.1111/dar.13031.

Feingold, D., Tzur Bitan, D., Ferri, M. and Hoch, E. (2024), ‘Predictors of effective therapy among individuals with cannabis use disorder: a review of the literature’, European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, doi:10.1007/s00406-024-01781-4.

Fischer, B., Russell, C., Sabioni, P., van den Brink, W., Le Foll, B., Hall, W., Rehm, J. and Room, R. (2017), ‘Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines: a comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations’, American Journal of Public Health 107(8), pp. e1-e12, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303818.

Gabrhelík, R., Mahic, M., Lund, I. O., Bramness, J., Selmer, R., Skovlund, E., Handal, M. and Skurtveit, S. (2021), ‘Cannabisuse during pregnancy and risk of adverse birth outcomes: a longitudinal cohort study’, European Addiction Research 27(2), pp. 131-141, doi:10.1159/000510821.

Gates, P. J., Sabioni, P., Copeland, J., Le Foll, B. and Gowing, L. (2016), ‘Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016(5), p. Cd005336, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005336.pub4.

Hall, W., Stjepanović, D., Caulkins, J., Lynskey, M., Leung, J., Campbell, G. and Degenhardt, L. (2019), ‘Public health implications of legalising the production and sale of cannabis for medicinal and recreational use’, Lancet 394(10208), pp. 1580-1590, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31789-1.

Halladay, J., Scherer, J., MacKillop, J., Woock, R., Petker, T., Linton, V. and Munn, C. (2019), ‘Brief interventions for cannabis use in emerging adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 204, p. 107565, doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107565.

Hartnett, D., Carr, A., Hamilton, E. and O'Reilly, G. (2017), ‘The effectiveness of functional family therapy for adolescent behavioral and substance misuse problems: a meta-analysis’, Family Process 56(3), pp. 607-619, doi:10.1111/famp.12256.

Hasan, A., von Keller, R., Friemel, C. M., Hall, W., Schneider, M., Koethe, D., Leweke, F. M., Strube, W. and Hoch, E. (2020), ‘Cannabis use and psychosis: a review of reviews’, European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 270(4), pp. 403-412, doi:10.1007/s00406-019-01068-z.

Hoch, E., Friemel, C. M. and Schneider, M. (2019), ‘Cannabis: potenzial und risiko’, Eine wissenschaftliche Bestandsaufnahme, Springer.

Hoch, E., Preuss, U. W., Ferri, M. and Simon, R. (2016), ‘Digital interventions for problematic cannabis users in non-clinical settings: findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis’, European Addiction Research 22(5), pp. 233-242, doi:10.1159/000445716.

Hoch, E., Volkow, N. D., Friemel, C. M., Lorenzetti, V., Freeman, T. P. and Hall, W. (2024), ‘Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: a review of evidence on risks and medical benefits’, European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, doi:10.1007/s00406-024-01880-2.

Hogue, A., Henderson, C. E., Ozechowski, T. J. and Robbins, M. S. (2014), ‘Evidence base on outpatient behavioral treatments for adolescent substance use: updates and recommendations 2007-2013’, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 43(5), pp. 695-720, doi:10.1080/15374416.2014.915550.

Horwood, L. J., Fergusson, D. M., Hayatbakhsh, M. R., Najman, J. M., Coffey, C., Patton, G. C., Silins, E. and Hutchinson, D. M. (2010), ‘Cannabis use and educational achievement: findings from three Australasian cohort studies’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 110(3), pp. 247-253, doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.03.008.

Imtiaz, S., Roerecke, M., Kurdyak, P., Samokhvalov, A. V., Hasan, O. S. M. and Rehm, J. (2020), ‘Briefinterventions for cannabis use in healthcare settings: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized trials’, Journal of Addiction Medicine 14(1), doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000527.

Imtiaz, S., Shield, K. D., Roerecke, M., Cheng, J., Popova, S., Kurdyak, P., Fischer, B. and Rehm, J. (2016), ‘The burden of disease attributable to cannabis use in Canada in 2012’, Addiction 111(4), pp. 653-662, doi:10.1111/add.13237.

Kondo, K. K., Morasco, B. J., Nugent, S. M., Ayers, C. K., O'Neil, M. E., Freeman, M. and Kansagara, D. (2020), ‘Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: a systematic review’, Annals of Internal Medicine 172(6), pp. 398-412.

Leung, J., Chan, G. C. K., Hides, L. and Hall, W. D. (2020), ‘What is the prevalence and risk of cannabis use disorders among people who use cannabis? A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Addictive Behaviors, doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106479.

Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Turner, R. M., Henderson, C. E. and Greenbaum, P. E. (2008), ‘Treating adolescent drug abuse: a randomized trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy’, Addiction 103(10), pp. 1660-1670, doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02274.x.

Lovell, M. E., Akhurst, J., Padgett, C., Garry, M. I. and Matthews, A. (2020), ‘Cognitive outcomes associated with long-term, regular, recreational cannabis use in adults: a meta-analysis’, Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 28(4), pp. 471-494, doi:10.1037/pha0000326.

MacCallum, C. A., Lo, L. A., Pistawka, C. A., Christiansen, A. and Boivin, M. (2024), ‘Cannabis vaporisation: understanding products, devices and risks’, Drug and Alcohol Review 43(3), pp. 732-745, doi:10.1111/dar.13800.

Macleod, J., Oakes, R., Copello, A., Crome, I., Egger, M., Hickman, M., Oppenkowski, T., Stokes-Lampard, H. and Davey Smith, G. (2004), ‘Psychological and social sequelae of cannabis and other illicit drug use by young people: a systematic review of longitudinal, general population studies’, Lancet 363(9421), pp. 1579-1588, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16200-4.

Maghsoudi, N., Tanguay, J., Scarfone, K., Rammohan, I., Ziegler, C., Werb, D. and Scheim, A. I. (2022), ‘Drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review’, Addiction 117(3), pp. 532-544, doi:10.1111/add.15734.

Marchand, G., Masoud, A. T., Govindan, M., Ware, K., King, A., Ruther, S., Brazil, G., Ulibarri, H., et al. (2022), ‘Birthoutcomes of neonates exposed to marijuana in utero: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, JAMA Network Open 5(1), p. e2145653, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45653.

Mian, M. N. and Earleywine, M. (2023), ‘Savoring as an intervention for cannabis use: acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary results’, Addiction Research & Theory 31(4), pp. 296-305, doi:10.1080/16066359.2022.2160871.

Mullins, M. F. (2021), ‘Cannabis dabbing: an emerging trend’, Nursing 51(5), pp. 46-50, doi:10.1097/01.NURSE.0000743108.72528.d8.

Murray, R. M., Quigley, H., Quattrone, D., Englund, A. and Di Forti, M. (2016), ‘Traditional marijuana, high-potency cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids: increasing risk for psychosis’, World Psychiatry 15(3), pp. 195-204, doi:10.1002/wps.20341.

National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine, (2017), The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research, National Academies Press (US), Washington, DC.

Nielsen, S., Gowing, L., Sabioni, P. and Le Foll, B. (2019), ‘Pharmacotherapies for cannabis dependence’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews(1), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008940.pub3.

Olmos, A., Tirado-Muñoz, J., Farré, M. and Torrens, M. (2018), ‘The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Addictive Behaviors 79, pp. 52-60, doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.045.

Onaemo, V. N., Fawehinmi, T. O. and D'Arcy, C. (2021), ‘Comorbid cannabis use disorder with major depression and generalized anxiety disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of nationally representative epidemiological surveys’, Journal of Affective Disorders 281, pp. 467-475, doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.043.

Pacheco-Colón, I., Ramirez, A. R. and Gonzalez, R. (2019), ‘Effects of adolescent cannabis use on motivation and depression: a systematic review’, Current Addiction Reports 6(4), pp. 532-546, doi:10.1007/s40429-019-00274-y.

Pratschke, J. (2024), ‘Harm reduction strategies for cannabis-related problems: a literature review and typology’, European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, doi:10.1007/s00406-024-01839-3.

Preuss, U. W., Huestis, M. A., Schneider, M., Hermann, D., Lutz, B., Hasan, A., Kambeitz, J., Wong, J. W. M. and Hoch, E. (2021), ‘Cannabis use and car crashes: a review’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 12, p. 643315, doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.643315.

Rabiee, R., Sjöqvist, H., Agardh, E., Lundin, A. and Danielsson, A.-K. (2023), ‘Risk of readmission among individuals with cannabis use disorder during a 15-year cohort study: the impact of socio-economic factors and psychiatric comorbidity’, Addiction 118(7), pp. 1295-1306, doi:10.1111/add.16158.

Rigter, H., Henderson, C. E., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Hendriks, V., Schaub, M. and Rowe, C. L. (2013), ‘Multidimensional family therapy lowers the rate of cannabis dependence in adolescents: a randomised controlled trial in western European outpatient settings’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 130(1-3), pp. 85-93, doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.10.013.

Robinson, T., Ali, M. U., Easterbrook, B., Hall, W., Jutras-Aswad, D. and Fischer, B. (2022), ‘Risk-thresholds for the association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Psychological Medicine, pp. 1-11, doi:10.1017/S0033291722000502.

Rømer Thomsen, K., Thylstrup, B., Kenyon, E. A., Lees, R., Baandrup, L., Feldstein Ewing, S. W. and Freeman, T. P. (2022), ‘Cannabinoids for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: new avenues for reaching and helping youth?’, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 132, pp. 169-180, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.033.

Schoeler, T., Theobald, D., Pingault, J.-B., Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W. and Bhattacharyya, S. (2018), ‘Developmental sensitivity to cannabis use patterns and risk for major depressive disorder in mid-life: findings from 40 years of follow-up’, Psychological Medicine 48(13), pp. 2169-2176, doi:10.1017/S0033291717003658.

Sherman, B. J., Sofis, M. J., Borodovsky, J. T., Gray, K. M., McRae-Clark, A. L. and Budney, A. J. (2022), ‘Evaluating cannabis use risk reduction as an alternative clinical outcome for cannabis use disorder’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 36(5), p. 505.

Silins, E., Horwood, L. J., Patton, G. C., Fergusson, D. M., Olsson, C. A., Hutchinson, D. M., Spry, E., Toumbourou, J. W., et al. (2014), ‘Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis’, Lancet Psychiatry 1(4), pp. 286-293, doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(14)70307-4.

Simmons, S. M., Caird, J. K., Sterzer, F. and Asbridge, M. (2022), ‘The effects of cannabis and alcohol on driving performance and driver behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Addiction 117(7), pp. 1843-1856, doi:10.1111/add.15770.

Skliamis, K., Benschop, A., Liebregts, N. and Korf, D. J. (2021), ‘Where, when and with whom: cannabis use, settings and self-regulation rules’, Contemporary Drug Problems 48(3), pp. 241-259, doi:10.1177/00914509211033921.

Smith, J., Mader, J., Smith, J., Smith, J. and Winters, K. (2020), University of Calgary’s Cannabis Cafe: education and harm reduction initiative – facilitator’s guide, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Sokolovsky, A. W., Gunn, R. L., Micalizzi, L., White, H. R. and Jackson, K. M. (2020), ‘Alcohol and marijuana co-use: consequences, subjective intoxication, and the operationalization of simultaneous use’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 212, p. 107986, doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107986.

Solmi, M., De Toffol, M., Kim, J. Y., Choi, M. J., Stubbs, B., Thompson, T., Firth, J., Miola, A., et al. (2023), ‘Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies’, BMJ 382, p. e072348, doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-072348.

Sorkhou, M., Bedder, R. H. and George, T. P. (2021), ‘The behavioral sequelae of cannabis use in healthy people: a systematic review’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 12, doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.630247.

Sorkhou, M., Singla, D. R., Castle, D. J. and George, T. P. (2023), ‘Birth, cognitive and behavioral effects of intrauterine cannabis exposure in infants and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Addiction 119(3), pp. 411-437, doi:10.1111/add.16370.

Steele, D. W., Becker, S. J., Danko, K. J., Balk, E. M., Adam, G. P., Saldanha, I. J. and Trikalinos, T. A. (2020), ‘Brief behavioral interventions for substance use in adolescents: a meta-analysis’, Pediatrics 146(4), p. e20200351, doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0351.

Stone, B. M. and Sherman, B. J. (2023), ‘Is it time for a cannabis harm reduction approach? Commentary on Sherman et al. (2022) and Borodovsky et al. (2022)’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 37(5), pp. 709-712, doi:10.1037/adb0000927.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2021), Preventing marijuana use among youth, National Mental Health, Substance Use Policy Laboratory, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD.

Tejada-Gallardo, C., Blasco-Belled, A., Torrelles-Nadal, C. and Alsinet, C. (2020), ‘Effects of school-based multicomponent positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence 49(10), pp. 1943-1960, doi:10.1007/s10964-020-01289-9.

Tinner, L., Palmer, J. C., Lloyd, E. C., Caldwell, D. M., MacArthur, G. J., Dias, K., Langford, R., Redmore, J., et al. (2022), ‘Individual-, family- and school-based interventions to prevent multiple risk behaviours relating to alcohol, tobacco and drug use in young people aged 8-25 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, BMC Public Health 22(1), p. 1111, doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13072-5.

Vuilleumier, C., Scherbaum, N., Bonnet, U. and Roser, P. (2022), ‘Cannabinoids in the treatment of cannabis use disorder: systematic review of randomized controlled trials’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 13,.

Walsh, H., McNeill, A., Purssell, E. and Duaso, M. (2020), ‘A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of interventions which target or assess co-use of tobacco and cannabis in single- or multi-substance interventions’, Addiction 115(10), pp. 1800-1814, doi:10.1111/add.14993.

World Health Organization (2016), The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use, WHO Press, Geneva.

 

About this miniguide

This miniguide provides an overview of what to consider when planning or delivering health and social responses to cannabis-related problems, and reviews the available interventions and their effectiveness. It also considers implications for policy and practice. This miniguide is one of a larger set, which together comprise Health and social responses to drug problems: a European guide.

Recommended citation: European Union Drugs Agency (2025), Cannabis: health and social responses, https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/mini-guides/cannabis-health-and-social-responses

Identifiers

HTML: TD-01-25-015-EN-Q
ISBN: 978-92-9408-101-8
DOI: 10.2810/0310283