What topics does this cannabis study cover?

This study covers research on: CBD, Pain, Anxiety, Mental Health.

Where was this research published?

Published in The International journal on drug policy on September 19, 2026.

CBD use varies across countries and reflects access pathways

Q: What did this research study find?

*CBD-only* product use was **highest in the United States and lowest in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand** across lifetime, past-year, and past-month measures.

Use of cannabidiol products in Canada, United States, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, United Kingdom and Germany: products, sources and reasons for use.

The International journal on drug policy • September 19, 2026 • Highly Relevant

🤖

AI Summary

This cross-sectional observational study examined how people use CBD-only products across Canada, the United States, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Researchers analyzed weighted survey data from 79,644 participants aged 16–65 in the 2024 International Cannabis Policy Study, comparing product use, reasons for use, purchasing sources, and links with access to medical cannabis. Lifetime, past-year, and past-month use was highest in the United States and lowest in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Retail sources differed between jurisdictions, generally following local legal access pathways. Oils and edibles were the most commonly reported product types.

Across countries, people most often reported using CBD for pain, anxiety, and depression. Having used prescribed cannabis for medical purposes showed the strongest association with past-year CBD-only use, but this was an association rather than evidence that one caused the other. In the United Kingdom, Australia, and Aotearoa New Zealand, many people who had ever used a CBD-only product said they did so because they could not legally access medical cannabis. The findings support the need for clearer public health messaging and consumer guidance, but this survey cannot establish whether CBD products effectively treat symptoms or determine causation. This is an abstract-based summary; the full paper was not reviewed.

💡 Key Findings

CBD-only product use was highest in the United States and lowest in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand across lifetime, past-year, and past-month measures.

High

80%

Oils and edibles were the most commonly reported CBD-only product types, with purchasing sources varying by jurisdiction and generally reflecting local legal access pathways.

Good

75%

Pain, anxiety, and depression were the most frequently reported reasons for CBD use across the jurisdictions studied.

High

80%

Use of prescribed cannabis for medical purposes had the strongest association with past-year CBD-only use; in some countries, respondents also reported using CBD because they could not legally access medical cannabis. These are associations, not evidence of causation or treatment benefit.

High

80%

📄 Original Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cannabidiol (CBD) has attracted scientific, clinical, and public interest due to its perceived therapeutic benefits and favourable safety profile. However, a gap remains in understanding how different CBD-only regulatory frameworks shape consumers interaction with the CBD-only market. The study aimed to compare across jurisdictions: 1) CBD-only product use; 2) use for mental/physical symptom management; 3) socio-demographic correlates; and 4) sources of purchase; and 5) to estimate associations between CBD-only product use and perceived access to medical cannabis in jurisdictions without legal recreational cannabis. METHODS: Data were from the 2024 International Cannabis Policy Study, national cross-sectional surveys among participants aged 16-65 in Canada (CA), United States (US), Australia (AU), Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), United Kingdom (UK), and Germany (DE) (n=79,644). Weighted estimates of CBD-only product use and behaviours were calculated, and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to examine correlates. FINDINGS: Lifetime, past 12-month and past month CBD-only product use was the highest in the US and lowest in AU and NZ. Sources of purchase varied by jurisdiction but generally reflected legal access pathways. Oils (between US27.1% and NZ46.8%) and/or edibles (between AU19.8% and US34.2%) were the most reported product types. Pain (between UK32.3% and NZ49.3%), anxiety (between DE30.4% and US46.5%), and depression (between UK24.2% and AU31.1%) were the most reported reasons for use. The use of cannabis for medical purposes with a prescription had the strongest association with past 12-month use of CBD-only products (range: UKARR=3.42-NZARR=14.73). In UK, AU, and NZ, close to a third of respondents who had ever used a CBD-only product reported to do so because they could not legally access medical cannabis (UK28.4% and AU/NZ39.6%). CONCLUSION: There is wide cross-jurisdictional variation in CBD-only product use and retail access pathways reflecting distinct regulatory environments, alongside consistent patterns in products, and reasons for use. Variation in the relationship between CBD-only product use and medical cannabis systems, combined with the use of CBD-only products for managing anxiety, depression, and pain, underscores the need for clearer public health messaging, consumer guidance, and stronger evidence to guide policy and practice.

Paper Type

📄 Research

Publication

Journal: The International journal on drug policy
Published: September 19, 2026
PMID: 42762707
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2026.105506

Authors (8)

Elle Wadsworth Centre for Drug Use Research, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, UK. Electronic address: elw200@bath.ac.uk.
Myfanwy Graham Monash Addiction Research Centre, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marta Rychert SHORE & Whāriki Research Centre, College of Health, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Eva-Maria Krowartz IFT Institut für Therapieforschung, Centre for Mental Health and Addiction Research, Munich, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Ludwig- Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany; Department Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Charlotte Fresenius University, Munich, Germany.
Rosalie L Pacula Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
+3 more authors