Skip to main content

Government-mandated warnings on cannabis legally sold for recreational use

Abstract

Background

Frequent cannabis use can pose risks to health and safety. Multiple governments have legalized the sale of cannabis for recreational use and mandated health and safety warnings for recreational cannabis packages or signs at sales locations. The purposes of this study were to identify common themes across warnings and to compare the actual warnings with those previously recommended by cannabis experts and cannabis users.

Methods

We searched Google and Google Scholar for online lists of governments that allow or will soon allow the sale of cannabis for recreational use. Using the online lists we found, we searched for laws mandating the warnings, using the search terms “mandated warnings for recreational use marijuana” in addition to the name of the jurisdiction under review. We evaluated the content of the warnings and compared them with warnings recommended by cannabis experts and by users of recreational cannabis.

Results

Each search led to millions of results. Within the top results of each of the searches there were website links to official legislative websites, databases and documents of the jurisdiction under review. We used these official documents. The search revealed that 11 U.S. states and two countries allow the recreational use of cannabis and that 10 U.S. states and Canada mandate warnings on legally sold recreational cannabis. The mandated warnings can be categorized as focusing on one of nine risks: (1) negative health effects on the user, (2) harm to children or fetuses, (3) risks related to driving or operating machinery, (4) risks of habit formation leading to over-use, (5) risks relating to over-use on a single occasion, especially with regard to edible cannabis, (6) developmental risks for young people, (7) harm caused by secondary smoke, (8) risks of effects lasting several hours, and (9) risks specific to using cannabis topicals. The warnings include no graphic images and no phone number to call for help quitting.

Conclusions

The warnings, as a group, parallel most warnings recommended by cannabis experts and a sample of recreational users of cannabis. The effects of the warnings are unknown, but prior research findings on warnings for cannabis and for other substances suggest potential for positive effects in raising awareness of risks and decreasing the risks. The warnings could be used in public health campaigns. Public health professionals may find it possible through research to help improve the warnings, either in presentation or in content. Cannabis researchers can use the list to identify additional risks suitable for inclusion in mandated warnings.

Background

Legalization of cannabis sale for recreational use has grown rapidly in recent years, especially in the United States (Hansen 2019), despite serious health and safety risks being associated with use (Caulkins et al. 2016; Fischer et al. 2011; National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine 2017; Stoecker et al. 2018). Anticipating that governments legalizing cannabis would mandate health and safety warning, researchers published a list of warnings recommended by experts (Malouff and Rooke 2013). The 13 experts were individuals who had recently published more than one recent research article on the risks of cannabis use. They worked at universities, research institutes, or for a government. Their suggested warnings covered risks involving long-term and short-term harm to physical health and functioning, harm to mental health, danger in driving and using machinery, potential for becoming dependent, and adverse developmental effects.

Later, researchers conducted a survey in Australia in which they asked 288 adult users of cannabis to recommend government-mandated warnings. Use was illegal in Australia at the time. The users varied widely in their level of use, with some having used recreational cannabis only once and some using it most days of the week. They suggested warnings that included similar risks to those suggested by experts and also suggested warnings about risks of damage to fetuses; additionally, users suggested a mandated statement encouraging responsible use (Malouff et al. 2016). It is not known what the users meant by responsible use, but they might have meant something similar to what cannabis researchers have meant when using the expression: Moderation of frequency and quantity of use, use in appropriate settings, and use with respect for non-users (Lau et al. 2015).

More recently it has become apparent that some individuals experience problems from over-consuming edible cannabis because they do not expect the desired effects to have a delayed onset (Rehm 2019). Another recent development involves children gaining access at home to legally sold edible cannabis, consuming it, and suffering an adverse reaction (Dowd 2018).

The specific verbal content of warnings may play a role in how effective they are. In addition to mandating specific warnings, governments could mandate plain packaging (Goodman et al. 2019). Governments do sometimes require sellers to provide information about the THC content of cannabis, but consumers may not understand numerical presentation of the information (Hammond 2019).

One aim of the present study was to identify common themes across warnings. Another aim was to compare the actual warnings with those previously recommended by cannabis-research experts and recreational cannabis users.

Methods

We searched Google and Google Scholar on 28 August 2019 for online lists of governments that allow or will soon allow the sale of cannabis for recreational use. Using the online lists we found, we proceeded to search for laws mandating the warnings, using only the search terms “mandated warnings for recreational use marijuana” and the name of the jurisdiction under review, e.g., Canada. Each search led to millions of results. Within the top 50 results of each of the searches there were website links to official legislative websites, databases and documents of the jurisdiction under review. We used these official documents to complete the search.

Results

We found that 11 U.S. states have passed laws legalizing the recreational use of cannabis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Commercial sales of recreational cannabis are not allowed in Vermont (i.e., users must grow their own) and therefore no labelling requirements have been mandated. We also found that two countries, Canada and Uruguay, have legalized recreational use of cannabis at the national level.

At present, all 10 U.S. states that allow commectial sales mandate the placement of specific warnings on the products or in sales areas. Canada also mandates warnings on cannabis legally sold for recreational use. We were unable to find any mandated warnings in Uruguay. Below, we describe both the content and the format of those warnings.

We sorted the warnings into nine logical content categories upon which we both agreed. We did not use formal rules for categorizing the warnings.

The warnings focus on (1) negative health effects on the user, (2) harm to youths or fetuses, (3) risks related to driving or operating machinery, (4) risks of habit formation leading to over-use, (5) risks relating to overdose, especially with regard to edible cannabis, (6) developmental risks for young people, (7) harm caused by secondary smoke, (8) risks of effects lasting several hours, and (9) risks specific to using cannabis topicals.

Table 1 provides examples of the specific content of warnings of each type. The total number of warnings mandated by a government varied, with Canada having the most at nine. Some of the warnings refer to risks resulting from frequent or prolonged use or high THC content. The Canadian warnings contain more specific information than shown in Table 1. Table 2 provides links to the statutes and regulations that mandate the warnings.

Table 1 Government-mandated warnings on recreational cannabis packaging
Table 2 Sources of government-mandated warnings on packages of cannabis legally sold for recreational use

Across the 11 governments that mandate warnings, the warnings cover the expert-recommended warning topics. None of the warnings suggests responsible use, as suggested by users in the study of Malouff et al. (2016).

Some governments, including California and Canada, mandate multiple warnings that must be rotated. Canada has the most comprehensive warnings, covering all nine topics. The warnings mandated by U.S. states vary in covering one to four of the types of risks. See Table 1 for information about which states mandate which types of warnings.

Only Canada has warnings about the risk of harm to mental health. No government mandates graphic warnings, which are becoming common with regards to tobacco packages (Bekalu et al. 2019), and no government mandates providing a quit-line phone number, as suggested by recreational users of cannabis in a prior study (Malouff et al. 2016).

Table 3 shows how the types of mandated warnings compared to the types of content recommended by cannabis experts and by a group of cannabis users.

Table 3 Mandated types of warnings compared to the types of warnings recommended by cannabis experts and types of warnings receommended by a group of cannabis users

Discussion

Collectively, governments that mandate warnings for legally sold recreational cannabis cover nine types of risks to users and others, and the mandated warnings meet most of the suggestions of cannabis experts and recreational users (Malouff and Rooke 2013; Malouff et al. 2016). However, individual governments vary widely in how many risks they cover in their warnings, and some U.S. states have very low coverage of the risks of use, especially compared to Canada. Tables 1 and 3 show that the majority of U.S. states do not cover most of the types of risks mentioned in warnings recommended by cannabis experts.

It is unclear why and how governments choose the warnings they mandate. It would be wise for governments to review research findings on risks and to systematically mandate warnings based on those findings. We hope that the present categorization of warnings will help encourage states and other governments to cover all relevant risks in their mandated warnings.

Researchers have just begun to examine the possible effects of health and safety warnings on legally sold cannabis. For instance, researchers found in experimental research with community samples that graphic cannabis warnings are viewed as more likely to be effective than text-only warnings and that most individuals favor including a helpline phone number in warnings (Leos-Toro et al. 2019). Other researchers found in a sample of young adults that warnings about risks to cognitive development have the highest level of perceived effectiveness (Mutti-Packer et al. 2018).

There is at present no evidence that the government-mandated warnings affect cannabis-use levels. Specific warnings may or may not have effects on individuals, including recreational cannabis users and potential users, depending on motivations for use, personality, situation of use, and other factors. The evidence that warnings on tobacco and alcohol products affect use is mixed (Noar et al. 2016; Wilkinson and Room 2009).

The currently mandated warnings could provide content for public health campaigns. Those campaigns might be especially appropriate when governments, such as in Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow growing and using cannabis for recreational use, but not sale (Government of the District of Columbia undated; Vermont General Assembly undated). As new governments legalize cannabis for recreational use, they can use the existing warnings as examples of content to include.

The warnings mandated for recreational cannabis packages or sales venues could possibly be more effective in raising risk awareness and in decreasing harmful use if they (1) cover all major risks, as indicated by the types of warnings in Table 1, with rotation of the warnings, as required by Canada, (2) include graphic warnings, which are common for mandated tobacco warnings (Bekalu et al. 2019), and (3) provide a quit-line phone number, as included in some mandated tobacco warnings (Wilson et al. 2010). Also, it might be useful to present the warnings to users using the calmer expression “health information” rather than “warnings” in order to minimize resistance to government control. See LaVoie et al. (2017) regarding the risk of reistance. These hypothesized benefits could help guide researchers in exploring the actual effects of different presentations and content.

The collected warnings provide a list of risks already covered by warnings, so that cannabis researchers can more readily identify additional risks suitable for inclusion in mandated warnings. Researchers can recommend to governments that they include these newly identified risks in mandated warnings.

Some states mandate warnings for medical cannabis, but we have not examined these warnings. New Mexico, for instance, recently ordered warnings regarding medical-cannabis vaping (Boyd 2019). Because the risks of use are likely similar for recreational use and medical use, mandated warnings could logically overlap to a large extent for the two types of use. However, producers of cannabis as a medicine have legal-liability reasons to voluntarily warn of risks, similar to the reasons for producers of other medical drugs (Malouff 2016). Hence, voluntary warnings might be more likely for medical cannabis than for recreational cannabis, possibly lessening the need for mandated warnings for medical cannabis.

Conclusions

This review has shown that almost all governments that allow the sale of cannabis for recreational use mandate warnings. The mandated warnings fall into nine content categories, such as risks to fetuses. However, only some governments mandate warnings that cover a broad range of health and safety risks created by recreational cannabis use. We suggest a systematic approach for governments in choosing warnings to mandate regarding recreational cannabis. Also, we recommend further research on recreational cannabis warnings, including how best to make them effective.

Availability of data and materials

The authors’ electronic file of relevant laws is available from the corresponding author.

References

  1. 13 ON YOUR SIDE (2020, February 21). New law requires warning label for pregnant women on all marijuana products. https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/marijuana/michigan-law-requires-warning-label-on-all-marijuana-products/69-5daeccfb-fa06-4941-b212-0bec249ce89f.

  2. Bekalu MA, Ramanadhan S, Bigman CA, Nagler RH, Viswanath K. Graphic and arousing? Emotional and cognitive reactions to tobacco graphic health warnings and associated quit-related outcomes among low SEP population groups. Health Commun. 2019;34(7):726–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1434733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyd, D. NM orders warnings on some vaping. 2019 https://www.abqjournal.com/1374103/nm-to-require-warning-labels-on-cannabis-vaping-products.html.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Caulkins JP, Kilmer B, Kleiman MAR. Marijuana legalization: what everyone needs to know. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dowd MD. Acute marijuana intoxication in children. Pediatr Ann. 2018;47(12):e474–6. https://doi.org/10.3928/19382359-20181119-02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fischer B, Jeffries V, Hall W, Room R, Goldner ER, J. Lower risk cannabis use guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): a narrative review of evidence and recommendations. Can J Pub Health. 2011;02(5):324–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodman S, Leos-Toro C, Hammond D. The impact of plain packaging and health warnings on consumer appeal of cannabis products. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;20107633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107633.

  8. Government of Canada. Cannabis health warning messages. Undated. 2019; https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/regulations-support-cannabis-act/health-warning-messages.html.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Government of the District of Columbia. Initiative 71 and DC’s marijuana laws. Undated. https://mayor.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayormb/release_content/attachments/I71QA.pdf.

  10. Hammond D. Communicating THC levels and ‘dose’ to consumers: implications for product labelling and packaging of cannabis products in regulated markets. Inter J Drug Policy. 2019; www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395919301823.

  11. Hansen C. Where is marijuana legal? A guide to marijuana legalization. US News World Rep, July. 2019:29.

  12. Lau N, Sales P, Averill S, Murphy F, Sato SO, Murphy S. Responsible and controlled use: older cannabis users and harm reduction. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(8):709–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. LaVoie NR, Quick BL, Riles JM, Lambert NJ. Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Commun Res. 2017;44(3):416–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215609669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leos-Toro C, Fong GT, Meyer SB, Hammond D. Perceptions of effectiveness and believability of pictorial and text-only health warning labels for cannabis products among Canadian youth. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;73:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malouff J. Health and safety warnings for legally sold marijuana. In: Vasquez M, editor. Marijuana: Medical uses, regulations and legal issues; 2016. p. 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Malouff JM, Johnson CE, Rooke SE. Cannabis users' recommended warnings for packages of legally sold cannabis: an Australia-centered study. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2016;1(1):239–43. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2016.0029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Malouff JM, Rooke SE. Expert-recommended warnings for medical marijuana. Subst Abuse. 2013;34(2):92–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2012.715622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mutti-Packer S, Collyer B, Hodgins DC. Perceptions of plain packaging and health warning labels for cannabis among young adults: findings from an experimental study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1361. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6247-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Author; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Noar SM, Francis DB, Bridges C, Sontag JM, Ribisl KM, Brewer NT. The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Soc Sci Med. 2016;164:118–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rehm J. Edibles are tied to more severe health issues than smoking marijuana: ScienceNews; 2019. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/marijuana-cannabis-edibles-health-issues.

  22. Stoecker WV, Rapp EE, Malters JM. Marijuana use in the era of changing cannabis laws: What are the risks? Who is most at risk? Mo Med. 2018;115(5):398 PMC6205280.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Vermont General Assembly. n.d. H.511 (Act 86). Undated; https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2018/H.511.

  24. Wilkinson C, Room R. Warnings on alcohol containers and advertisements: international experience and evidence on effects. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;28(4):426–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00055.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson N, Li J, Hoek J, Edwards R, Peace J. Long-term benefit of increasing the prominence of a quitline number on cigarette packaging: 3 years of Quitline call data. NZ Med J. 2010;123(1321):109–11 https://global-uploads.webflow.com/5e332a62c703f653182faf47/5e332a62c703f6d5a22fd978_wilson.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We have no acknowledgements.

Funding

This project had no funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Malouff developed the idea for the study, categorized the warnings, and wrote the first draft of the article. Schutte-Malouff found the relevant laws and edited the article draft. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

None.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Malouff.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This data collection was from public sources and thus did not require ethics approval.

Consent for publication

The authors consent to publication.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malouff, J.M., Schutte-Malouff, B.P. Government-mandated warnings on cannabis legally sold for recreational use. J Cannabis Res 2, 22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-020-00029-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cannabis
  • Health
  • Labeling
  • Marijuana
  • Recreational
  • Risks
  • Warnings